email_body: 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.
  
subject_line: tariff question
  