Message-ID: <15513978.1075852910940.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT) From: craig.buehler@enron.com To: mark.mcconnell@enron.com, dennis.lee@enron.com Subject: USGT K# 27161 Cc: kimberly.watson@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bcc: kimberly.watson@enron.com X-From: Buehler, Craig X-To: McConnell, Mark , Lee, Dennis X-cc: Watson, Kimberly X-bcc: X-Folder: \KWATSON (Non-Privileged)\Watson, Kimberly\Inbox X-Origin: Watson-K X-FileName: KWATSON (Non-Privileged).pst =09Here's what I've found out from Dennis Lee. USGT requested a realignmen= t of delivery capacity back in June (it was also sent to them in June). Th= ey held onto the request until a few weeks ago when they signed and returne= d the amendment. Dennis found where the capacity was disapproved by Perry = Frazier but, for an as yet unknown reason, Michelle Cormier tendered this a= mendment to them. The changes have been activated in the TW contract syste= m; however, we have not signed/returned the amendment and they have not nom= inated these changes. Dennis says they switch these DP's frequently and wo= uld "probably" be agreeable to switch 6,000/d of their capacity (which was = suggested by Perry in his denial of capacity) upon our request. As you're = aware, Michelle has changed jobs since this incident and this amendment was= tendered prior to our re-implemention of the routing process. I'll get yo= u the file and associated papers as soon as Dennis has completed his examin= ation. Our Tariff does stipulate that an amendment, not returned within 30 = days, is null and void. Since we did not sign and return the amendment, we= could just say it "timed out"... just a thought. Craig