Response to ORA/TURN petition

Mike - Here is the situation. Between ENA and EES, we sell gas to core and
non-core customers, and also have gas in storage as well as in the park and
lend service. I think we can be sympathetic to the ORA argument that the
diversion tariff penalties did not anticipate OFOs and EFOs in situations
such as we face here (shortages due to credit problems rather than lack of
supply). Assessing extreme penalties, as the OFO/EFOs would do, on users who
are not perfectly imbalance under this situation certainly seems unfair.
However, I think we should argue that limiting the payments to
shippers/customers whose gas is diverted to serve core customers to a market
index may not fully compensate for the diversion. The pay back specifically
does not include interstate pipeline charges, and there may be other costs as
well to the marketer/customer who had supplies taken away.

I need an estimate of the cost to make this filing and follow it up for the
RCR process, and I would also like any feedback anyone has on what our
position should be in this matter. The response is due Friday.