[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53565-53577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26677]
[[Page 53565]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 284
[Docket No. RM96-1-009; Order No. 587-I]
Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines
Issued September 29, 1998.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is addressing
requests for rehearing and clarification of Order No. 587-G, 63 FR
20072 (Apr. 23, 1998). The rehearing and clarification requests concern
the regulations relating to intraday nominations, trading of
imbalances, and Internet communications. The Commission is revising
Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(i)(B) of its regulations to change the implementation
date for the transition to Internet communications to June 1, 2000. The
Commission also is requiring that pipelines provide a dual
communication system involving file transfers and standardized Internet
web sites so shippers will have the option of choosing the
communication modality that best fits their business needs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The amendment to the Commission's regulation adopted in
this order will become effective November 5, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
N.E., Washington DC, 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Goldenberg, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 208-2294.
Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Economic Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-
1283.
Kay Morice, Office of Pipeline Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-
0507.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room
at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426. The
Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) provides access to the texts
of formal documents issued by the Commission. CIPS can be accessed via
Internet through FERC's Homepage (http://www.ferc.fed.us) using the
CIPS Link or the Energy Information Online icon. The full text of this
document will be available on CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1 format.
CIPS is also available through the Commission's electronic bulletin
board service at no charge to the user and may be accessed using a
personal computer with a modem by dialing 202-208-1397, if dialing
locally, or 1-800-856-3920, if dialing long distance. To access CIPS,
set your communications software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200,
4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop
bit. User assistance is available at 202-208-2474 or by E-mail to
[email protected]
This document is also available through the Commission's Records
and Information Management System (RIMS), an electronic storage and
retrieval system of documents submitted to and issued by the Commission
after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present
can be viewed and printed. RIMS is available in the Public Reference
Room or remotely via Internet through FERC's Homepage using the RIMS
link or the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is
available at 202-208-2222, or by E-mail to [email protected]
Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, RVJ International,
Inc. RVJ International, Inc., is located in the Public Reference Room
at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
Order on Rehearing
This order addresses requests for rehearing of Order No. 587-G
which revised Commission regulations to require interstate natural gas
pipelines to comply with a set of standards governing business
practices and communication protocols.1 In Order No. 587-G,
the Commission incorporated by reference, in Sec. 284.10(b) of its
regulations, the most recent version (Version 1.2) of standards
promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB). The Commission
also adopted regulations, in new Sec. 284.10(c) of its regulations,
governing intraday nominations, operational balancing agreements
(OBAs), netting and trading of imbalances, standardization of
communications over the public Internet, and notices of operational
flow orders. A number of parties filed for rehearing or clarification
of Commission regulations regarding intraday nominations, imbalance
trading, and the Internet requirements.2 The Commission
denies the rehearing requests relating to the intraday nomination
regulations and grants rehearing and clarification with respect to the
requirements relating to Internet communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587-G, 63 FR 20072 (Apr. 23, 1998), III FERC
Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles para. 31,062 (Apr. 16, 1998).
\2\ The parties filing for rehearing are listed on the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission continued its efforts, begun in
Order Nos. 587, 587-B, and 587-C,3 to create a more
standardized interstate pipeline grid so that shippers can more easily
ship gas and transact business across the grid. Towards this end, the
Commission updated its regulations to incorporate by reference version
1.2 of the business practices and communication standards promulgated
by GISB, a private consensus standards developer with a membership
drawn from all facets of the natural gas industry. The Commission also
adopted regulations governing business practices and communication
protocols to resolve policy issues that had been dividing the GISB
membership. The business practice regulations adopted by the Commission
require pipelines to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (Jul. 26, 1996), III FERC
Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles para. 31,038 (Jul. 17, 1996),
Order No. 587-B, 62 FR 5521 (Feb. 6, 1997), III FERC Stats. & Regs.
Regulations Preambles para. 31,046 (Jan. 30, 1997), Order No. 587-C,
62 FR 10684 (Mar. 10, 1997), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations
Preambles para. 31,050 (Mar. 4, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give firm intraday nominations priority over already
nominated and scheduled interruptible transportation service and permit
firm intraday nominations submitted on the day prior to gas flow to go
into effect at the start of the gas day;
Enter into operational balancing agreements at all
interstate and intrastate pipeline to pipeline interconnects; and
Permit shippers to offset imbalances across contracts and
trade imbalances amongst themselves when such imbalances have similar
operational impact on the pipeline's systems.
The electronic communication regulations require pipelines to:
[[Page 53566]]
Post all information and conduct all business transactions
using the public Internet and internet protocols by June 1, 1999;
Adhere to standards governing the provision of information
on pipeline web sites and retention of electronic records of
transactions;
Notify shippers of critical events affecting the system,
such as operational flow orders, by posting the information on pipeline
web sites and by direct notice either through Internet E-Mail or
notification to the shipper's Internet address.
In addition, in Order No. 587-G, the Commission determined not to
issue regulations on other disputed issues that are still under
consideration by GISB--title transfer tracking, cross-contract ranking,
multi-tiered allocations, fuel reimbursement, and penalty calculations.
In Order Nos. 587-F 4 and 587-G, the Commission provided
guidance on aspects of these issues and established December 31, 1998,
as the date for submission of further standards and comments on these
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587-F, 62 FR 61459 (Nov. 18, 1997), IV FERC
Stats. & Regs. Proposed Regulations para. 32,527 (Nov. 12, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for rehearing of Order No. 587-G were due by May 18, 1998,
and 45 parties filed requests for rehearing and clarification.
II. Discussion
The rehearing and clarification requests concern the regulations
requiring pipelines to: give firm intraday nominations priority over
interruptible shippers; permit shippers to trade imbalances; and
transact business using the public Internet and adhere to standards for
posting information on Internet web sites and retention of electronic
records. In addition, clarification was sought in two areas in which
the Commission chose not to issue regulations: title transfer tracking
and fuel reimbursement.
The vast majority of the rehearing and clarification requests focus
on the regulations requiring pipelines to conduct all business
transactions over the public Internet by June 1, 1999.5 The
Commission is revising Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(i)(B) to change the
implementation date for the transition to Internet communications to
June 1, 2000. The Commission also is requiring that pipelines provide a
dual communication system involving file transfers and standardized
Internet web sites so shippers will have the option of choosing the
communication modality that best fits their business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commission also received a number of letters relating to
these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, with respect to intraday nominations, the Commission
denies the requests to revise Sec. 284.10(c)(1)(i)(B) so that a firm
intra-day nomination that bumps scheduled interruptible service would
take effect at 5 p.m., rather than 9 a.m. It also reaffirms its policy
regarding waivers of penalties for bumped interruptible shippers for
one day. As to imbalance trading, the Commission reaffirms its policy
of requiring pipelines to permit shippers to trade imbalances across
rate schedules. The requests for rehearing and clarification are
discussed in detail below.
A. Intraday Nominations
An intraday nomination is any nomination submitted after the
initial nomination made at 11:30 a.m. central clock time
(CCT).6 An intraday nomination may be made either on the day
prior to gas flow (after 11:30 a.m.) or on the day of gas
flow.7 GISB initially passed a standard requiring pipelines
to provide one intraday nomination per day. Pipelines implemented this
standard in different ways which limited the ability of shippers to
coordinate intraday nominations across multiple pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1998), Nominations Related Standards
1.2.4.
\7\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1998), Nominations Related Standards
1.2.7 (deleted by Order No. 587-H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve better coordination, GISB then approved a revised
intraday schedule establishing three synchronization times at which
shippers could coordinate intraday nominations: 6 p.m. (to take effect
the next gas day), 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. (to take effect on the same gas
day). The Commission adopted this timeline in Order No. 587-
H.8 GISB, however, reported that it had been unable to reach
agreement on whether intraday nominations should displace (bump)
previously scheduled interruptible service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587-H, 63 FR 39509 (July 23, 1998), III FERC
Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles para. 31,063 (July 15, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission resolved this dispute by
adopting regulations, in Sec. 284.10(c)(1)(i), establishing the
scheduling priority for intraday nominations. The Commission adopted
regulations requiring pipelines to accord an intraday nomination
submitted by a firm shipper scheduling priority over nominated and
scheduled volumes for interruptible shippers. In addition, the
regulations require that an intraday nomination submitted on the day
prior to gas flow will take effect at the start of the gas day at 9
a.m. CCT. The Commission, however, also agreed with the GISB consensus
that the third intraday nomination opportunity should not have priority
over scheduled interruptible volumes.
In effect, the regulations as adopted in Order No. 587-H require
pipelines to permit intraday nominations by firm shippers at 6 p.m. (on
the day prior to gas flow) and 10 a.m. (on the day of gas flow) to bump
scheduled interruptible service, while a firm intraday nomination at 5
p.m. (on the day of gas flow) would not bump scheduled interruptible
service. Under the regulations, a firm intraday nomination at 6 p.m.
would bump scheduled interruptible service as of the 9 a.m. start of
the next gas day.
The regulations further provide that pipelines must give an
interruptible shipper advance notice of its reduction in scheduled
volumes and inform the shipper whether penalties will apply on the day
its volumes are reduced. The Commission further stated that it would
consider whether pipelines should waive certain daily penalties for
bumped interruptible shippers when pipelines made their filings to
comply with the regulations. As a general principle, the Commission
found that pipelines should follow the Commission's previous precedent
and waive non-critical penalties, such as daily variance or scheduling
penalties.
1. Effective Time of Intraday Nominations Submitted the Day Prior to
Gas Flow
Natural Gas Clearinghouse (NGC) and Exxon Company, U.S.A. (Exxon)
do not challenge the Commission's determination that firm intraday
nominations should be entitled to scheduling priority over
interruptible service. They contest only the determination that a firm
intraday nomination submitted on the day prior to gas flow will take
effect at the start of the gas day (9 a.m. central clock time). They
contend that instead of becoming effective at 9 a.m., a firm intraday
nomination that bumps scheduled interruptible service should not become
effective until 5 p.m. NGC argues that, if the Commission does not
change the effective time to 5 p.m., the Commission should, in the
alternative, require pipelines to allow bumped interruptible shippers
an overnight rescheduling opportunity.
NGC and Exxon maintain that the 9 a.m. effective time causes
problems for interruptible shippers because they will have no
opportunity to reschedule their
[[Page 53567]]
bumped gas before the bump becomes effective at 9 a.m. CCT, and the
producers and marketers serving interruptible shippers may not always
have the capability of shutting down plants and remote wells during
non-working hours. In contrast, if firm shippers' nominations do not
become effective until 5 p.m., the interruptible shippers could
reschedule their bumped supply at the 10 a.m. intraday nomination
opportunity the next day. Exxon maintains the balance between firm and
interruptible shippers in Order No. 587-G weighs too heavily on the
side of the firm shippers.
The Commission denies the rehearing requests. The Commission's
general policy is that firm service is entitled to priority over
scheduled interruptible service. Firm shippers pay reservation charges
for firm service and, therefore, are entitled to have their intraday
nominations become effective at the earliest possible time.
Interruptible shippers, by contrast, take the risk that their service
will be interrupted. Thus, the Commission concludes that when balancing
the rights of firm and interruptible shippers, the balance must weigh
more heavily on the side of firm shippers.
Exxon maintains that prior to Order No. 587-G, firm shippers on
many pipelines were not able to bump interruptible shippers and had a
more limited number of intraday opportunities available to them. It,
therefore, maintains that firm shippers' ability to bump interruptible
shippers should be limited to protect interruptible shippers.
In fact, however, prior to Order No. 587-G, the Commission had
required pipelines filing to implement intraday nominations to follow
the Commission's general policy that firm intraday nominations would be
given priority over scheduled interruptible service.9 It was
only on those pipelines which had pre-existing no-bump rules that
interruptible shippers were protected against bumping. To achieve
uniformity, the Commission, in Order No. 587-G, applied the same rule
to all pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., El Paso Natural Gas Company, 77 FERC para. 61,176
(1996); Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Company, 79 FERC para. 61,117
(1997); Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, 78 FERC para. 61,281
(1997); ANR Pipeline Company, 78 FERC para. 61,142 (1997); Arkansas-
Western Pipeline Company, 78 FERC para. 61,250 (1997); Canyon Creek
Compression Company, 78 FERC para. 61,003 (1997); CNG Transmission
Corporation, 78 FERC para. 61,131 (1997); Great Lakes Gas
Transmission Limited Partnership, 79 FERC para. 61,194 (1997);
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., 79 FERC para. 61,196 (1997);
K N Interstate Gas Transmission Company, 79 FERC para. 61,208
(1997); Mojave Pipeline Company, 78 FERC para. 61,153 (1997);
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 78 FERC para. 61,332 (1997);
NorAm Gas Transmission Company, 79 FERC para. 61,069 (1997);
Overthrust Pipeline Company, 78 FERC ] 61,285 (1997); Questar
Pipeline Company, 78 FERC para. 61,305 (1997); Southern Natural Gas
Company, 78 FERC para. 61,125 (1997); Texas Gas Transmission
Corporation, 79 FERC para. 61,175 (1997); Trailblazer Pipeline
Company, 77 FERC para. 61,328 (1996); Viking Gas Transmission
Company, 78 FERC para. 61,243 (1997); Young Gas Storage Company,
Ltd., 79 FERC para. 61,030 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, when all the intraday nomination changes are considered
together, interruptible shippers receive as great a benefit from these
changes as firm shippers, and interruptible shippers are not left
unprotected under the Commission's regulation. Prior to Order No. 587,
many pipelines provided no opportunity for interruptible shippers to
reschedule gas bumped by firm nominations. Even after implementation of
Order No. 587, firm nominations submitted at 11:30 a.m. could reduce or
terminate existing interruptible flow starting at 9 a.m. the next day,
and the interruptible shipper would have no opportunity to reschedule
that gas until after the reduction took effect.
In contrast, under the new regulations providing for multiple
intraday nominations, an interruptible shipper whose existing flow is
reduced by a firm nomination will have an opportunity to reschedule
that gas using the 6 p.m. intraday nomination. Moreover, an
interruptible shipper bumped by a 6 p.m. intraday nomination will have
two additional opportunities to reschedule gas on an industry-wide
basis (the 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. intraday opportunities).
Interruptible shippers are protected in other ways as well. The
Commission has given interruptible shippers the tools, such as pooling,
gas package identifiers, ranking, and allocation flexibility
10 that they can use to manage their gas supplies in the
event of a bump. For instance, even if a producer has some remote
wells, it can use pooling and ranking to ensure that the gas from its
more easily accessible wells is cut before gas from remote wells.
11 The Commission has also protected interruptible shippers
by requiring pipelines to waive certain daily penalties, such as daily
scheduling or variance penalties, for bumped interruptible shippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1998), Nominations Related
Standards 1.3.17-1.3.18 (pooling), 1.3.23 (ranking), 1.3.24-1.3.25
(package identifiers); 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(ii) (1998), Flowing Gas
Related Standards 2.3.19 (allocations).
\11\ Pooling refers to the ability of producers to aggregate gas
from many wells in a single pool. Ranking refers to the ability to
inform the pipeline which well will be cut first in the event of a
cut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, if interruptible shippers or their suppliers have to
adjust flows, the standards give them ample notice (11 hours) to do so.
The gas business is increasingly becoming a 24-hour per day business.
Indeed, the industry agreed that all parties need to support a seven-
days-a-week, twenty-four-hours-a-day nominations process.12
Thus, all participants must structure their businesses to accommodate
to that change, and ultimately producers dealing with interruptible
shippers need to be able to adjust their gas flows when necessary to
accommodate nomination changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1998), Nominations Related
Standards 1.3.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing a delayed effective time for 6 p.m. firm intraday
nominations that bump interruptible service, as NGC and Exxon suggest,
also could have negative effects on interruptible shippers by creating
incentives for firm shippers to overnominate at the 11:30 a.m. initial
nomination. Under a delayed effective time, firm shippers would have an
incentive to overnominate on their initial nominations to protect
themselves. A firm shipper that overnominates at the 11:30 a.m.
nomination always retains the ability to reduce that nomination by
submitting an intraday nomination at 6 p.m. (that day) or 10 a.m. or 5
p.m. (the next day) to decrease its scheduled quantity. However, under
NGC's and Exxon's proposed delayed effective time, the firm shipper
could not increase its initial nomination until 10 a.m. (the next day)
to become effective at 5 p.m. Thus, Exxon's and NGC's proposal create
an incentive for firm shippers to overnominate at the initial 11:30
a.m. nomination to protect themselves, potentially resulting in less
interruptible service being available.
NGC maintains unless the Commission adopts an overnight
rescheduling opportunity, the current rule could result in decreased
flows for interruptible shippers using multiple pipelines and cause
pipelines to lose interruptible revenues. It argues that, if an
interruptible shipper is bumped on the upstream pipeline, its gas will
not flow on the downstream pipeline either. Without at least an
overnight rescheduling opportunity, NGC argues, the downstream pipeline
will lose revenue.
The Commission, however, made clear in Order No. 587-G that
pipelines are permitted to institute overnight rescheduling
opportunities for bumped interruptible shippers if the pipeline deems
it necessary to preserve its revenue. Each pipeline needs to judge the
efficacy of instituting such a policy on its own system, rather than
having the Commission impose the requirement
[[Page 53568]]
on a generic basis. As one pipeline pointed out in its comments in this
proceeding, in many cases, an overnight rescheduling opportunity might
be of little value since the nominations could not be
confirmed.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Order No. 587-G, 63 FR at 20079, III FERC Stats. & Regs.
Regulations Preambles para. 31,062 at 30,673.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Penalty Waivers
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission proposed to adhere to its
previous policy requiring pipelines to waive certain daily penalties
for interruptible shippers whose scheduled volumes are reduced by a
firm intraday nomination.14 Under this policy, penalties
would be waived only for the day on which the bump takes place. Given
the variety of penalty provisions in pipeline tariffs, the Commission
concluded that the determination as to which penalties should be waived
would be made when pipelines fail to comply with the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Order No. 587-G, 63 FR at 20077, III FERC Stats. para.
Regs. Regulations Preambles para. 31,062 at 30,672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission set forth principles as to how it would determine
which penalties should be waived. The Commission found that no
penalties should be imposed if shippers have not received appropriate
notice of their reduced volumes. During non-critical periods, pipelines
would be expected to waive daily penalties, such as daily variance or
scheduling penalties, but they would not be expected to waive daily
penalties during critical periods, when operational flow orders (OFOs)
are in effect. During OFO periods, the Commission did expect pipelines
to comply with standard 1.1.14, which provides that, unless critical
circumstances dictate otherwise, OFO penalties should not be imposed
when a nomination is required to comply with the OFO and the shipper
has not been given an opportunity to correct the circumstance giving
rise to the OFO.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1998), Nominations Related
Standards 1.1.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch) and ANR Pipeline Company and
Colorado Interstate Gas Company (ANR/CIG) raise questions about the
Commission's policy on waiver of penalties. Koch contends the
Commission should not require pipelines to waive daily penalties during
non-critical or critical periods because pipelines will lose control of
their systems if shippers can continue to dump gas onto the pipelines
with no liability. Koch contends waiver of penalties should be at the
pipelines' discretion. ANR/CIG requests clarification that the
Commission's guidance about penalties should not foreclose GISB from
adopting standards related to, or even contrary to those proposals, and
should not predetermine the scope of pipeline proposals.
As a general matter, the Commission finds its principles establish
a reasonable balance between the needs of pipelines to manage their
systems and the difficulties imposed on shippers whose scheduled
volumes are reduced. While the Commission expects shippers to adjust
gas flows to accord with revisions to their scheduled volumes, the
Commission recognizes that, in some circumstances, the shortened notice
period (three hours under the standards) 16 may make such
adjustments difficult. Thus, for non-critical periods, pipelines should
waive daily penalties for the day of the bump. This rule does not
immunize shippers from liability for placing extra gas on the system,
as Koch asserts. Shippers would still have an incentive to minimize the
amount of excess gas they put on the system, because the waiver applies
only to penalties for the day of the bump; shippers would still be
responsible for excess gas on the system and would be subject to
penalties resulting from that gas on subsequent days. At the same time,
during non-critical periods, having some extra gas on the system should
not create operating difficulties for pipelines. During normal
operations, pipelines should be able to absorb some extra gas on their
systems for one day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i), Nominations Related Standards 1.3.2
(iii) (three-hour notice of bumping at the 10 a.m. intraday
nomination cycle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, during critical periods, pipelines should not be
required to waive daily penalties, because having extra gas on the
system even for one day may cause operational problems. Moreover,
during critical periods, all shippers may have difficulty in adjusting
to an OFO and bumped interruptible shippers should not necessarily be
given different treatment, particularly when any extra latitude given
to interruptible shippers may come at the expense of reduced service or
increased penalties for other shippers.
These principles are intended to provide pipelines with guidance as
to the Commission's view as to which penalties should be waived. As
stated in Order No. 587-G, the Commission will consider specific
pipeline penalties depending on the circumstances involved when
pipelines make their compliance filings, and the principles do not
predetermine the result of that inquiry.
3. Relative Priority of Firm Primary and Secondary Nominations
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) requests
clarification that, in its filing to comply with Order No. 587-G, it
can revise its tariff to establish that a firm intraday nomination to
firm primary receipt or delivery points will not bump already scheduled
firm volumes to secondary receipt or delivery points. National Fuel
points out that in the November 12, 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR), which led to Order No. 587-G, the Commission stated that its
general policy regarding relative firm priorities is that intraday
nominations to primary points do not bump already scheduled firm
nominations to secondary points. National Fuel asserts that its current
tariff does not protect firm shippers using secondary points from being
bumped by firm intraday nominations to primary points. It contends that
it should be able to change this policy in its compliance filing,
because much of the benefit of the intraday timetable would be lost if
secondary firm nominations are not protected from bumping by primary
firm nominations.
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission rejected requests to adopt a
regulation or a generic policy on the priority of firm primary and firm
secondary intraday nominations.17 The Commission determined
that the current priorities for firm service in effect on each pipeline
should continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Order No. 587-G, 63 FR at 20079, III FERC Stats. & Regs.
Regulations Preambles para. 31,062 at 30,673-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Order No. 587-G did not adopt a regulation regarding the
relative priorities of firm primary and secondary capacity, National
Fuel should not include a change to its current priority scheme for
firm shippers in a compliance filing. Any such filing must be made as a
separate section 4 filing. This is consistent with the manner in which
the Commission previously handled filings to comply with GISB
standards. In those compliance filings, the Commission permitted
changes to tariff provisions only when necessary to comply with the
standards. Pipelines seeking to reduce, eliminate, or change other
service offerings as a result of the standards were required to submit
such proposed changes in a filing under section 4 of the Natural Gas
Act made coincident with the compliance filing.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See El Paso Natural Gas Company, 77 FERC para. 61,176, at
61,660, 61,662 (1996); Florida Gas Transmission Company, 77 FERC
para. 61,177, at 61,664 (1996); National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation, 77 FERC para. 61,178, at 61,673 (1996); Northern Border
Pipeline Company, 77 FERC para. 61,179, at 61,680, 61,682 (1996);
Transwestern Pipeline Company, 77 FERC para. 61,180, at 61,684
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53569]]
B. Imbalance Trading
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission adopted a regulation
(Sec. 284.10(c)(2)(ii)) requiring pipelines to permit shippers (and
their agents) to offset imbalances on different contracts held by the
shipper and to trade imbalances with other shippers so long as the
imbalances have similar operational impact on the pipeline. The
Commission required pipelines to permit netting and imbalance trading
across contracts under different rate schedules. The Commission
reiterated its current policy that if a pipeline can document that such
trading will cause a loss of transportation revenue, the pipeline would
be permitted to implement an appropriate mechanism to ensure that it is
made whole for all appropriate transportation charges.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, 64 FERC para.
61,009, at 61,066 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williston Basin requests clarification that it will be allowed to
devise a mechanism to protect against loss of transportation revenue
when interruptible imbalances are traded with firm imbalances.
Williston Basin poses the following as an example of a situation in
which imbalance trading will result in a loss of transportation
revenue:
Assume a shipper has a 1,000 Dth positive imbalance (i.e.,
delivers into Williston Basin's system 1,100 Dth of which Williston
Basin delivers 100 Dth off its system at a rate of $0.41) under an
interruptible contract and trades the 1,000 Dth positive imbalance
with a shipper who has a 1,000 Dth negative imbalance (i.e.,
delivers into Williston Basin's system 100 Dth of which Williston
Basin delivers 1,100 Dth off its system at a rate of $0.04) under a
firm contract. The imbalance on Williston Basin's system is 0 Dth.
However, Williston Basin will have received transportation revenues
of only $85 ($41 based on 100 Dth at the Rate Schedule IT-1
[interruptible] rate of $0.41 and $44 based on 1,100 Dth at the Rate
Schedule FT-1 [firm] rate of $0.04). Under Williston Basin's
currently effective FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1,
which does not allow shippers to trade imbalances across rate
schedules and under the same scenario just illustrated, the Rate
Schedule IT-1 shipper must trade its 1,000 Dth positive imbalance
with another Rate Schedule IT-1 shipper's 1,000 Dth negative
imbalance. Williston Basin would have received transportation
revenues of $451 based upon 1,100 Dth at the Rate Schedule IT-1 rate
of $0.41 and $41 (sic) based upon 100 Dth at the Rate Schedule FT-1
rate of $0.04.
In the example above, allowing shippers to trade imbalances
would cause Williston Basin to forego $407 of transportation
revenues.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Williston Basin's Request for Clarification And/Or
Rehearing, Docket No. RM96-1-009, at 4 (May 15, 1998).
If the Commission does not grant Williston Basin's requested
clarification, Williston Basin requests rehearing of the Commission's
requirement that pipelines permit imbalance trading across rate
schedules.
Williston Basin's example is confusing. For example, it derives
revenue of $41 from 100 Dth of firm transportation at the firm usage
rate of $0.04. But the correct calculation would be $4.00. It may be
that Williston Basin intended in the second example to refer to
imbalance trading between two interruptible shippers rather than an
interruptible and a firm shipper. In that case the revenue received
would be $41 (100 Dth at an interruptible rate of $0.41).
However, if that is the case, then Williston Basin is determining
differential revenues by, in one case, evaluating revenues from an
interruptible and a firm shipper and, in the other case, from two
interruptible shippers. But this is an apples and oranges comparison.
The proper analysis to determine whether imbalance trading results in
transportation revenue loss is to compare revenues received from the
same two shippers (interruptible and firm) with imbalance trading and
without such trading. When this comparison is made, the Commission can
see no such transportation revenue loss.
Williston Basin's tariff, like those of many pipelines, states that
transportation charges for interruptible service are based on the
``quantity of gas in dkt delivered * * * for Shipper's account at the
point(s) of delivery.'' 21 In Williston Basin's example,
there are two shippers, one interruptible and one firm. If no
imbalances are traded between these shippers, the interruptible shipper
would pay transportation revenues of $41 (100 Dth of delivered gas
multiplied by $.41) and the firm shipper would pay $44 (1,100 Dth of
delivered gas multiplied by $.04). Thus, without imbalance trading,
Williston Basin would still receive the same $85 from the two shippers
as it receives with imbalance trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company, FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet
No. 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williston Basin's only potential loss of revenue would seem to be a
loss of potential penalty revenue on the imbalance. Without imbalance
trading, both shippers would have imbalances of 1,000 Dth, although
going in opposite directions. But penalties are imposed solely to
discourage shipper conduct inimical to the system; pipelines are not
entitled to expect such revenue. As the Commission explained in Order
No. 587-G, and Williston Basin does not contest, as long as the
imbalances net out, there is no adverse operational effect on the
pipeline.
Given the confusion in Williston Basin's example, it may be that
Williston Basin has other circumstances in mind. If there are other
circumstances that should be considered, Williston Basin can propose in
an NGA section 4 filing an appropriate mechanism to ensure that
imbalance trading does not result in a reduction in transportation
revenue to which it is legitimately entitled.
C. Internet Communications
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission promulgated regulations, in
Sec. 284.10(c)(3), requiring pipelines to post all information and
conduct all business using the public Internet by June 1, 1999, and to
adhere to other standards relating to electronic communication. As
discussed below, the vast majority of the clarification and rehearing
requests concern the principles the Commission established for the
transition to Internet communications. Other requests relate to the
regulations establishing standards for presentation of information on
pipeline web sites, requiring pipelines to provide tables cross-
referencing numeric designations with common names, and requiring
pipelines to adhere to standards for retention of electronic data.
1. Transition to Internet Communications
Prior to Order No. 587-G, the pipelines communicated with their
shippers using dial-up Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBBs) on which
shippers would view pipeline information and enter their own
information on the screen through keystrokes. The EBBs, however,
created difficulties for shippers dealing with multiple pipelines
because each EBB required unique software, logon, and other procedures.
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission required pipelines to conduct all
business transactions using Internet communications to solve the
difficulties created by the proprietary EBBs and to provide shippers
with a standardized method of doing business across multiple pipelines.
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission also provided guidance on how
the transition to standardized Internet
[[Page 53570]]
communication should be implemented. The Commission set forth the
following four principles.
Pipelines had to conduct all business transactions (which
they currently conduct using their EBBs) through downloading and
uploading files in ASC X12 electronic data interchange (EDI)
format.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EDI was chosen by the industry and GISB as the standardized
format for file transfers. Standards for EDI are promulgated by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards
Committee (ASC) X12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipelines could, but were not required to, provide
interactive web sites.23 Pipelines would be permitted cost-
of-service recovery in subsequent section 4 rate cases for the costs of
the interactive web sites only if the pipelines created standards
governing the access to, presentation, and format (``look and feel'')
of the sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Interactive web sites permit shippers to view information
on-line and transmit information to the pipelines by filling in on-
line forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipelines must assure a level playing field for shippers
using EDI and the interactive web site. Regardless of which system is
used, the shipper must obtain the same service and same information
handling and response priority from the pipeline.
By the June 1, 1999, conversion to Internet
communications, communications using EBBs should cease, although
pipelines could maintain EBBs solely as a back-up system for a period
of one year after the June 1, 1999 date for implementing Internet
communication. Pipelines would be required to remove EBB costs from
cost-of-service in any general section 4 rate case effective after June
1, 2000.
The rehearing requests do not challenge the Commission's decision
to require pipelines to conduct communications via the Internet. They
focus on the principles articulated by the Commission for implementing
the requirement. The rehearing requests focus on four issues: the
relationship between EDI file transfers and interactive web sites, the
requirement that pipelines assure a level playing field for EDI and
interactive web sites, the June 1, 1999 implementation date, and cost
recovery for pipeline EBBs and interactive web sites.
a. File Transfers and Interactive Web Sites. (1) Rehearing
Requests. In Order No. 587-G, the Commission required pipelines to
conduct all business transactions using EDI. At the same time, it
permitted pipelines to establish interactive web sites. These
interactive web sites would operate much the same way as EBBs with
shippers able to view information on-line and transmit information to
the pipelines by filling in on-line forms. The Commission permitted the
pipelines to recover the costs for establishing interactive web sites
in their cost-of-service as long as the sites conformed to standards
governing access to the web sites as well as the presentation and
format (``look and feel'') of the sites.
While shippers and pipelines do not object to the requirement that
pipelines support the use of EDI, they contend that EDI should not be
the exclusive means of communication and that some form of interactive
approach is also necessary.24 They maintain that EDI is
cost-effective only for those doing a high volume of transactions.
While the cost to shippers of using EDI is the paramount concern, some
shippers are also concerned about the potential for losing some of the
interactive functionality provided by EBBs 25 To avoid
having to use EDI, some shippers suggest pipeline EBBs should be
continued,26 while many others support a mandatory
requirement for pipelines to provide interactive web
sites.27 PSCo/Cheyenne and National Fuel Distribution
contend that in addition to EDI file transfers, pipelines should
continue to transact business using flat files (not in EDI format).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., AGDF, Atlanta/Chattanooga, CNG, Consumers, El
Paso/Tennessee, Engage, East-of-California Shippers, Florida
Municipalities, Florida Power, INGAA, IPAA, Koch, MCV, MGE, National
Fuel Distribution, NGT/MRT, Pacific Northwest Shippers, PG&E GT-NW,
PSCo/Cheyenne, Reedy Creek, RPC, Southern, TCGS.
\25\ See Pacific Northwest Shippers, East-of-California
Shippers.
\26\ See Piedmont, PSCo/Cheyenne, IPAA, RPC, Western.
\27\ See AGA, et al., East-of-California Shippers, Brooklyn
Union/Long Island, MCV, Florida Power, TCGS, Florida Municipals,
NGC, NGSA, Pacific Northwest Shippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 1998, GISB filed with the Commission a report that
included the steps it was taking to achieve the transition to the
Internet required by Order No. 587-G. GISB requested that pipelines
provide a list of current EBB applications for which no EDI standards
had been developed. Four hundred eighty-five items were identified.
GISB is having these items independently reviewed by Ernst & Young to
determine which of the 485 items are susceptible to EDI usage. In
addition, GISB is considering several models for Internet transition,
including a model developed by a consortium of pipeline and shipper
interests providing for both pipeline interactive web sites and EDI
file transfers.
(2) Commission Resolution. In Order No. 587-G, the Commission
required pipelines to establish a standardized communication system
using the Internet because, despite shipper complaints about the
difficulties of using non-standardized EBBs, GISB and the pipelines had
not developed a plan for moving to a standardized communication
system.28 The Commission is pleased that given the impetus
of Order No. 587-G, GISB and the industry are now developing standards
for both EDI and interactive web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ GISB standard 4.3.6 states that all transactions should be
achieved through one mode of communications, but GISB apparently had
reached an impasse on achieving this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission continues to favor an approach to communication in
which shippers can either transact business using computer-to-computer
file transfers or conduct business on-line in an interactive fashion,
whichever approach best fits their needs. For instance, currently,
pipelines' EBBs provide the interactive access and EDI is used for
standardized file transfers. Both EBBs and EDI are included in the
pipelines' cost-of-service. The rehearing requests raise issues related
to both interactive web sites and file transfers.
(a) Interactive Web Sites. While the Commission did not mandate the
use of an interactive web site in Order No. 587-G, it permitted
pipelines to respond to customer demand to provide an interactive web
site and to recover the costs of establishing the web site in the
pipelines' cost-of-service as long as the site complied with applicable
standards developed by GISB. This approach was a carry-over from the
prior cost treatment of EBBs; the Commission had required pipelines to
conduct only certain transactions on their EBBs, but, if pipelines
chose to offer more services, they could include those costs in their
cost-of-service.
Many customers request that the Commission mandate that pipelines
provide interactive Internet web sites in order to ensure that the
sites are developed on the same schedule as the EDI file transfers. The
pipelines themselves generally support the development of such an
approach. The Commission, therefore, will require pipelines to develop
interactive web sites that comply with the standards being developed by
GISB. If there are pipelines where parties prefer only to use EDI file
transfers to avoid the added costs of having the pipeline establish an
interactive web site, the pipelines may seek a waiver of the
requirement to develop an interactive web site.
(b) File Transfer Standards. The Commission chose to require
pipelines
[[Page 53571]]
to use EDI as the standardized format for file transfers, because that
was the method chosen by the industry. In the industry working groups
and later through GISB, the industry chose EDI, because it found that
non-EDI flat files,29 would be less flexible and lacked the
validation programs available for EDI.30 Rehearing requests
raise questions relating to pipeline obligations to provide for EDI and
non-EDI file transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Flat files contain the same information as the EDI files,
but without the special formatting included in EDI files.
\30\ See Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under
Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations, Order No. 563-A, 59 FR
23624 (May 9, 1994), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [Jan.
1991-June 1996] para. 30,994 at 31,042 (May 2, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its rehearing request, Koch suggests it has a choice as to
whether to provide EDI file transfers. But providing standardized EDI
communication is not optional. The current regulations require Koch to
provide for EDI communication. Indeed, in the rehearing requests in
this proceeding, shippers and pipelines support the continuation of the
EDI requirement because they find that file transfers may be more
efficient for some shippers, particularly where large volumes of
transactions are involved. Thus, to the extent Koch was seeking
rehearing of the requirement to provide for EDI file transfers, the
Commission denies the request.
However, the Commission recognizes that some smaller pipelines
already have been granted waivers or extensions of time to implement
EDI file transfers. If smaller pipelines demonstrate that there is no
demand to use EDI, they may file for waivers of the EDI requirement.
National Fuel Distribution and PSCo/Cheyenne argue that those
pipelines that currently provide non-EDI, flat file transfers should
continue this practice, because non-EDI file transfers may be less
expensive than EDI for some shippers. National Fuel Distribution
contends that GISB should develop standardized flat file transfers.
GISB is considering whether and how to standardize non-EDI flat
file transfers,31 and the Commission encourages the industry
to continue this inquiry. Even if standardizing non-EDI file transfers
is not deemed worthwhile, pipelines that already provide this service
must continue to provide it on a non-discriminatory basis, and other
pipelines will be free to offer the service on a non-discriminatory
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See July 28, 1998 Minutes of GISB EBB-Internet
Implementation Task Force, http://www.gisb.org/eii.htm (Aug. 10,
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes that in the rapidly changing frontiers of
electronic communication, technology does not remain stagnant. The
movement from EBB technology to the Internet is one example, as is the
movement from value-added-networks to the Internet for file transfers.
The Commission's goal is to provide shippers with the ability to
transact business interactively or through file transfers. If, however,
changing commercial circumstances or evolving technology render any
current technology, such as EDI, sub-optimal for purposes of bulk data
transfer before the June 1, 2000 deadline, the Commission expects that
GISB and the industry will begin to explore how to adopt the best
solutions for the market. GISB and the industry should continue their
efforts to explore new technological solutions and to adopt those
technologies that prove to be more cost-effective and user-friendly.
b. Level Playing Field. In Order No. 587-G, the Commission required
pipelines to assure a level playing field for those using EDI and
interactive web sites by ensuring that regardless of the format used,
shippers receive the same service and the same response priority from
the pipelines. The pipelines, as well as some shippers, maintain that
shippers should not necessarily receive identical service from
interactive web based systems and EDI. They contend interactive
systems, by their very nature, are more responsive than EDI and a
requirement for maintaining a level playing field will only serve to
limit the services offered to shippers using interactive
systems.32 The rehearing requests concern two issues:
whether all transactions should be made available in EDI format; and
how to ensure equality of treatment regardless of the communication
modality a shipper adopts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See INGAA, El Paso/Tennessee, PG&E GT-NW, Western.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Transactions To Be Made Available in EDI File Transfer Format.
Pipelines and shippers identify a number of transactions which are
currently provided on EBBs, but are not provided through file
transfers. These include on-line contracting, storage and other special
reports.33 They want pipelines to continue to be able to
provide these services even if they are not also provided using EDI.
GISB requested pipelines to submit all their business transactions that
are not currently provided using EDI and is having these items reviewed
independently by Ernst & Young to determine whether these business
transactions can be reasonably conducted using EDI file transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See El Paso/Tennessee, East-of-California Shippers, Pacific
Northwest Shippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not every transaction may be suited to file transfer,
pipelines must provide for EDI file transfer in every case where it is
feasible. For instance, the ability to nominate by using file transfers
may be of little value if the shipper has to go online to amend the
receipt points in its contract. The Commission is encouraged by GISB's
efforts to obtain an independent, impartial review of whether
transactions should be provided through file transfers and looks
forward to receiving that report.
The Commission also recognizes that pipelines need to be able to
develop and offer their customers new services on their interactive web
sites. At the same time, to maintain equality between interactive web
sites and EDI file transfers, services provided on the interactive web
site must, whenever feasible, be provided using EDI or other
standardized file transfers (if the industry determines to standardize
non-EDI file transfers).
Thus, when pipelines are developing new services for their
interactive web sites, they must also consider the method for
implementing the business practice using EDI and, in compliance with
standard 1.2.2,34 provide advance notice of their proposed
EDI solution to GISB for review. Before initiating the new service,
pipelines should file under section 4 of the NGA at least 30 days prior
to the proposed implementation date detailing the efforts they have
made to develop a standardized file transfer. If the pipeline has
complied with the requirement to provide GISB with advance notice of
their proposed EDI solution, it would be permitted to implement its new
service on schedule. This approach should not inhibit development of
new interactive solutions while at the same time helping to ensure that
those using file transfers are not denied a reasonable opportunity to
obtain the same service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1998), Nominations Related
Standards 1.2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Ensuring Shippers are not Disadvantaged by their Choice of
Communication Modality. The pipelines contend that the requirement to
provide a level playing field will eviscerate the value of interactive
web sites because it will prevent the pipelines from providing the
immediate error checking and responsiveness that is the principal
benefit of interactivity.35 They claim that interactive
error checking is ill-suited to the EDI process
[[Page 53572]]
which relies on batch processing of requests. El Paso/Tennessee suggest
that the requirement for a level playing field should be interpreted to
mean that pipelines must ensure that EDI shippers are not disadvantaged
by the use of EDI, not that pipelines must reduce all service to the
EDI level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See INGAA, CNG, El Paso/Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission continues to hold that pipelines should treat those
using file transfers and interactive web communications similarly to
ensure that users of EDI are not disadvantaged. This is important not
only to ensure non-discrimination, but to prevent pipelines from
attempting to limit competition by favoring their own interactive web
system over the standardized file transfer system. At the same time,
the Commission does not want to limit the ability of the pipelines to
provide as efficient and responsive an interactive web site as is
possible.
The Commission agrees with El Paso/Tennessee that, in order to
achieve both these goals, the proper formulation of the requirement is
that pipelines must ensure that no business disadvantage accrues to
shippers using EDI compared with those using interactive approaches.
Pipelines can ensure equal treatment without compromising the value of
interactive service. For instance, EDI is not necessarily restricted to
batch communication and pipelines could assure equal treatment by
processing EDI file transfers in real time so shippers using EDI will
receive an error report in the same time frame as shippers using
interactive modalities. If developing real-time EDI is too expensive,
pipelines could provide those shippers using EDI with added time so
that they can receive and respond to error messages. This would be
similar to the 15-minutes of extra time given to third-parties
processing nominations on behalf of shippers.36 GISB and the
industry should work on developing whatever standards are necessary to
ensure that those using file transfers are not placed at a business
disadvantage to those using the pipelines' interactive web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1998), Nominations Related
Standards 1.3.2. Parties nominating directly to the pipeline using
EBBs must send nominations by 11:30. Parties using third-parties
also must send their information to the third-party by 11:30, but
the third-party is accorded 15 minutes of processing time before it
has to transmit the information to the pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Implementation Date. Both shippers and pipelines 37
contend that the June 1, 1999 implementation date does not allow
sufficient time for development of standards and implementation of both
EDI and interactive web sites, particularly given the industry's need
during the same time period to devote information technology personnel
to dealing with the Year 2000 computer problem.38 Some
recommend that the Commission delay implementation until GISB develops
the standards,39 while others recognize the need for a
deadline to ensure compliance, but recommend that the deadline should
be changed to June 1, 2000.40 NGSA and NGC argue that the
Commission should adopt a staggered implementation schedule. They
maintain pipelines reasonably should be able to implement standardized
interactive web sites for nomination-related transactions by June 1,
1999, with the remainder of functions made available on interactive web
sites by June 1, 2000. GISB's EBB-Internet Transition Task Force also
is working on a staged approach to implementation--with nominations and
confirmations by June 1, 1999, allocation, imbalance, and measurement
reporting by November 1999, invoice and payment information by April
2000, and capacity release information by June 2000--although these are
not firm dates. INGAA recommends that the pipelines be responsible for
providing access to their current EBBs over the Internet by June 1,
1999, with June 1, 2000 as the start for a phased-in compliance for
interactive web sites and completion of EDI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ AGA, et al., AGDF, Atlanta/Chattanooga, CNG, ECT, El Paso/
Tennessee, Engage, Florida Municipals, Great Lakes, INGAA, KN,
Brooklyn Union/Long, MCV, National Fuel, NGSA, Pacific Northwest
Shippers, Peoples, Peoples/NorthShore, Piedmont, PSCo/Cheyenne,
Southern, TCGS, WGP.
\38\ The Year 2000 problem refers to the use of two digits to
represent the year in computer programs and embedded computer chips.
If not corrected, the digits 00 may be interpreted as referring to
the year 1900, rather than 2000.
\39\ Atlanta/Chattanooga, CNG, ECT, MCV, TCGS.
\40\ AGA, et al., NGSA, Pacific Northwest Shippers. See also KN
(recognizing the need for a firm implementation date), INGAA
(proposing an implementation schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the effort GISB is making to effectuate the transition to
Internet communications, the Commission finds that providing additional
time will help ensure a smooth transition. The Commission, therefore,
will amend Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(i)(B) to require pipelines to complete the
move to Internet communications by June 1, 2000.
Even though the Commission has provided an extra year to achieve
full compliance, the Commission expects the pipelines to be working
throughout that period to develop their Internet sites. GISB's phased
implementation to Internet transition makes sense because it not only
provides shippers with the ability to conduct the crucial nomination
and confirmation and flow gas transactions at an earlier date, but also
enables the industry to begin testing initial transactions to see how
the standards work. The Commission finds that the timetable for phased
implementation laid out by GISB is reasonable and has every confidence
that the industry can meet those targets. The Commission fully expects
pipelines to implement the Internet transition according to this
schedule. In setting out its implementation schedule, GISB has
expressed concern about the potential need for regulatory
approval.41 The Commission emphasizes that pipelines need
not and should not wait for Commission adoption of the standards to
begin implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See June 1, 1998 Report to the Board of Directors re EBB-
Internet Transition Plan at 30 (included in GISB's July 15, 1998
filing in Docket No. RM96-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that the Commission is kept abreast of the industry's progress
in meeting its staggered implementation schedule, GISB and others in
the industry should submit quarterly reports starting December 1998 and
running through December 1999 detailing the progress being made in the
standardization process.42 While all pipelines are required
to complete the transition to the Internet by June 1, 2000, the
Commission recognizes that some pipelines may have more difficulty in
meeting the interim implementation timetable than others. To keep the
Commission apprised of the industry's progress, those pipelines that
find themselves unable to meet the interim implementation dates must
file with the Commission an explanation of the reasons for the delay
and when implementation of the interim transactions will take place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The reports would be due at the end of December 1998, March
1999, June 1999, September 1999, and December 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INGAA has suggested that, as an interim step, pipelines might
simply provide access to their current EBBs over the Internet by June
1, 1999. This, however, would not be the equivalent of a standardized
Internet web site, since once logged on, shippers would still be using
the pipelines' current EBB. The Commission is reluctant to require
pipelines to provide such an interim option because it would take time
and resources that would be more productively spent on meeting GISB's
plan for staggered implementation of interactive web sites. While
pipelines are free to make this option available as an interim measure,
the Commission will not require them to do so.
d. Cost Recovery. (1) Continuation of EBBs. In Order No. 587-G, the
Commission found that pipelines
[[Page 53573]]
should be able to continue their EBB systems until they have converted
to a standardized system (including an interactive web site) and could
maintain their EBBs as a back-up system for one year thereafter. Upon
conversion to the standardized system, however, the Commission
concluded that pipelines should no longer be able to recover the costs
for their EBBs in their cost-of-service.
A number of shippers request clarification that pipelines can
continue to use their EBBs until the implementation of a standardized
interactive web site.43 Other shippers and pipelines
maintain that pipelines should be permitted to continue to provide EBBs
as an additional option.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See NGSA, Louisville.
\44\ See CNG, El Paso/Tennessee, IPAA, Piedmont, PSCo/Cheyenne,
RPC, Southern, Western.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once an interactive Internet-based system is implemented, there
appears no reason for pipelines to continue to support a third, non-
standardized communication modality. Interactive web sites will provide
users with the same interactive functionality they now receive from
EBBs. Pipelines, therefore, should not receive recovery for the
operation and continued maintenance or enhancements of EBBs in rate
cases filed one year after implementation of the interactive web site
and standardized file transfer systems. Pipelines, however, will be
free to continue to provide EBB services as an additional option as
long as they recover the costs for such services through a separate
charge.
(2) Recovery of Costs for Interactive Web Sites.
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission concluded that pipelines could
recover the costs for both EDI file transfers and standardized
interactive web sites through their cost-of-service. The Commission
concluded that including such costs did not provide an undue preference
to the users of interactive web sites, because the costs for both EDI
and interactive web sites would be recovered through cost-of-service
and because attempting to separate the costs of implementing EDI and
interactive web sites would be difficult due to the integrated nature
of communication systems.
The pipelines are concerned about the Commission's limitation of
cost recovery to standardized Internet web sites. INGAA and KN maintain
that the Commission should permit recovery of all costs in developing
interactive web systems as long as the pipelines ultimately adhere to
the standards developed by GISB. Enron and Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf
maintain that cost recovery should be determined in individual rate
cases.
As stated above, pipelines should be permitted to recover the costs
for developing standardized interactive web sites. As long as the
pipelines' web sites adhere to the standards being developed by GISB,
pipelines generally should be permitted to recover those costs.
Specific issues relating to cost recovery must be addressed in specific
pipeline rate cases.
TransCapacity seeks rehearing of the determination to include
interactive web sites in cost-of-service, claiming the decision will
limit competition between the pipelines' presentation systems and those
sold by third-parties. Including the cost of presentation in cost-of-
service, which is recovered through transportation rates, TransCapacity
asserts, will make the use of the pipelines' interactive web site
essentially free to all customers, while customers will have to pay an
added charge to obtain a presentation system from third
parties.45 Providing the pipelines' presentation systems for
free, TransCapacity argues, distorts customers' choices about which
systems have greater value. Rather than having pipelines bear the
entire cost of processing information, TransCapacity contends a fairer
and more competitive approach would be to have the pipelines bear their
costs of sending and receiving information and pipeline customers bear
their costs of organizing and processing the data sent to the pipeline.
TransCapacity urges the Commission either to remove pipeline
interactive systems from cost-of-service or institute a form of
crediting under which firm shippers using EDI or third-parties would
receive a credit for not using the pipelines' interactive web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ TransCapacity maintains that for those shippers paying
transportation rates, the pipelines' interactive system is
effectively ``free,'' because the shippers have to pay the same
transportation rate whether they decide to use the pipelines' or
third parties' systems. Those who use the pipelines' communication
systems but do not pay transportation rates, TransCapacity
maintains, pay nothing to use the service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's determination to permit cost-of-service recovery
for pipeline interactive web sites continues current policy. The
Commission permitted pipelines to recover the costs of both EBB and EDI
in their cost-of-service so that shippers could select the option that
best fit their business needs.
TransCapacity's argument is that EDI file transfers compete
directly with pipeline provision of interactive web sites, because both
approaches can be used to achieve the same result--the provision to the
customer of an interactive presentation that enables them to enter
information directly from their computer screen. If that were the
primary benefit of EDI, however, there would be little need to require
EDI file transfers in the first place; a standardized interactive web
site, without file transfers, would be sufficient. Interactive webs
sites and EDI file transfers are not simply two ways of achieving the
same result; they provide two different options from which shippers can
choose the approach that best fits their business needs.
Interactive web sites permit human beings to conduct business from
their computer desktops, but such web sites do not permit direct
computer-to-computer communications, without human intervention. File
transfers, on the other hand, permit customers to store and process
information on their own computer systems. For instance, using a
pipeline's interactive web site, a human being would have to access a
pipeline's web site to view capacity release offerings on a screen, but
would have to take notes on what offerings were available. In contrast,
using EDI file transfers, the information could be automatically
downloaded to the customer's computer system which would process the
information to the customer's specification. Thus, providing cost-of-
service recovery for pipeline interactive web sites does not foreclose
competition from third parties. Given the added advantages of file
transfers in terms of processing and recordkeeping, third-parties still
have a valuable service to provide to shippers even if interactive web
site costs are included in cost-of-service.
TransCapacity, in essence, is arguing that communications can be
separated into two components: the transmission of information and the
graphical interface or presentation of that information on the
customer's computer. TransCapacity would include the costs of
transmitting information in the pipelines' cost-of-service, but not the
cost of the graphical interface, which would have to be recovered
through a separate fee.
But this model incorrectly views an interactive web site as two
products. An interactive web site is an integrated product in which the
transmission of information and the graphical interface are combined in
a single product. While a pipeline conceivably could design a system
that would transmit information in EDI format, and then use that
information to create the graphical interface, most interactive web
sites are not designed in this manner and TransCapacity has not shown
that such
[[Page 53574]]
a dual approach would be as technologically, or cost, effective as an
integrated product.46 Because interactive web sites combine
information transmission and presentation, the costs of these two items
cannot be separated, as TransCapacity suggests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See X Areeda, Antitrust Law Sec. 1746b at 227-229 (1996)
(integrated products involve some physical or technological linkage
that makes the single product superior to a product that the
customer can produce by installing the components separately).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As AGA, et al., correctly points out, TransCapacity's proposal
would have the effect of subsidizing those shippers using EDI file
transfers. Under TransCapacity's proposal, the costs of EDI file
transfers would be included in the cost-of-service, while the total
costs for interactive web sites would be excluded. TransCapacity itself
does not propose attempting to segregate the transmission related costs
from the presentation-related costs. Thus, shippers paying
transportation rates would have to pay for EDI services in
transportation rates even if they preferred to use interactive web
sites.
TransCapacity next argues that cost-of-service treatment for EDI is
justifiable because it is far less expensive for pipelines to provide
EDI file transfers than an interactive web site. According to
TransCapacity, EDI costs only a few hundred thousand dollars while
interactive web sites would cost $5-20 million per pipeline.
TransCapacity analogizes to Order No. 636 in which the Commission
required the pipelines to unbundle (separate) the costs of transmission
and merchant service and recommends the Commission establish
proceedings under section 5 of the NGA to require pipelines to disclose
such costs.
AGA, et al., sought leave to file an Answer to TransCapacity's
rehearing request. AGA, et al., maintain that TransCapacity's $5-20
million estimate for interactive web sites is misleading because the
majority of costs would be back-office programming costs and personnel
which would be a required cost of doing business regardless of whether
an interactive web site is built. In other rehearing requests,
pipelines and shippers contend that the costs for pipelines (and
shippers) to obtain and install EDI translation software is itself
expensive.47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See INGAA, East-of-California Shippers, Pacific Northwest
Shippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Commission found in Order No. 587-G, attempting to allocate
pipeline costs of implementing EDI and interactive web sites could be
difficult. AGA, et al., point out that separating EDI from the costs of
interactive web sites is particularly difficult given the integrated
nature of pipeline computer systems. TransCapacity's analogy to the
unbundling in Order No. 636 is inapt since there is no showing that
potential competition in communications has nearly the competitive
impact of bundled sales and transportation services. Indeed, before
attempting to unbundle products, there should be some showing that
customers favor unbundled services.48 Based on the large
number of rehearing requests, most customers in the gas industry do not
favor a policy where shippers must acquire their presentation interface
independently from the transmission of the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See X Areeda, Antitrust Law, para. 1743(a) at 192 (1996)
(if buyers do not desire unbundled products, nothing useful could be
accomplished by condemning the bundle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, even if costs of both systems could be segregated,
establishing a rate would require pipelines to project estimated usage
for each system without any actual experience. For instance, pipelines
may initially project that few parties will use EDI which could raise
the rate for using EDI even if its implementation costs were less. That
higher unit cost might then discourage users from trying EDI. Since the
gas industry has not had long experience with either EDI or interactive
web-based technologies, the rate structure should not bias shippers'
determination as to which approach they might prefer. At this stage,
the Commission prefers to give shippers the option to choose which
system they prefer.
AGA, et al., agree with TransCapacity on one point: they both
contend that all users, including non-shippers, should be required to
pay the costs of using the pipelines' communication system. They argue
that the current system of including all communication costs in cost-
of-service results in non-shippers paying none of the costs of the
communication system.
No other party to this proceeding has raised this issue, and the
Commission is not convinced that non-shippers, such as producers,
marketers, or point operators, should pay a special fee for using a
pipelines' communication system. These non-shippers are acting on
behalf of shippers and unless they can communicate easily with the
pipeline, the efficiency of the industry may suffer. A producer or
point operator, for example, needs to confirm a nomination for a
shipper's gas to flow. While the producer or point operator is not a
shipper, it is acting to benefit the shipper when it uses the
pipelines' electronic communication system to confirm the nomination.
Since the shipper is paying transportation rates, charging a separate
fee to the producer or point operator is not necessarily justifiable.
Moreover, neither AGA, et al., nor TransCapacity has shown that the
costs of pipeline communication systems are so large that they
significantly effect shippers' rates.
If the concern is that providing communication service without a
separate fee will encourage overuse of the system, the Commission has
already given pipelines the ability to charge separate fees to deter
overuse. In Order No. 636, the Commission found that pipelines could
charge a usage fee to recover the variable costs for operating their
communication systems.49 The majority of pipelines, however,
have not seen a need to impose such usage charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to
Regulations Governing Self-Implementing Transportation under Part
284 of the Commission's Regulations, Order No. 636-A, 57 FR 36128
(Aug. 12, 1992), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [Jan.
1991-June 1996] para. 30,950 at 30,564 n.171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Commission cannot resolve these cost issues on the pleadings
in this proceeding, TransCapacity recommends that the Commission
establish a generic proceeding in this docket to deal with the cost
issues. A generic conference to explore recovery of pipeline
communication cost issues does not appear warranted. There has been no
showing that these costs are so substantial that they seriously affect
the level of rates. Issues about the provision of free service also
require inquiry into the actual costs of constructing and operating
systems. To the extent parties want to raise such issues, they can be
considered in individual pipeline proceedings where actual costs and
impacts can be evaluated.50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ As AGA, et al., point out, issues concerning recovery of
communication costs have been raised in rate cases. See
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 82 FERC para. 63,019
(1998) (initial decision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Standards for Internet Web Sites
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission adopted a regulation
establishing certain minimum standards governing pipeline display of
information on their Internet web sites to be implemented August 1,
1998.51 The regulation requires that: documents must be
accessible to the public over the public Internet using commercially
available web browsers, without imposition of a password or other
access requirement; users must be able to search an entire document
[[Page 53575]]
online for selected words and users must be able to copy selected
portions of the documents; and documents on the Web site should be
directly downloadable without the need for users to first view the
documents on the web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 18 CFR 284.10(c)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
KN contends that the Commission should delay implementation of
these standards until GISB completes its review of ``look and feel''
standards for Internet web sites. KN maintains that implementation of
two sets of standards may cause pipelines to incur duplicative
development costs.
The Commission denies the rehearing request. The regulation adopted
by the Commission in Order No. 587-G provides a basic foundation to
ensure that currently available web browser software will permit users
access to all pipeline web sites and that, once at a site, users will,
at a minimum, be able to search a document efficiently and copy, paste,
and download material. As an example, the regulation ensures that when
a pipeline posts its tariff on its web site,52 users will
have the ability to search the entire tariff for the information they
are seeking. The standards established in the regulation would be
necessary regardless of whatever additional standards GISB devises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(iv) (1998), Electronic Delivery
Mechanism Related Standards 4.3.6 (requiring pipelines to post
tariff terms and conditions on the Internet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cross-Reference Table
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission required pipelines to provide a
table cross-referencing any numeric designation with the applicable
name or other information being represented.53 This
requirement was needed to ensure that the Commission and shippers can
identify parties to transactions which Commission regulations require
to be made public. The GISB standards currently rely on numbers
published by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) to identify shippers. If D&B,
however, is unwilling to permit the development of a cross-reference
table, the Commission required the pipelines either to cease using
numeric designations or develop their numeric identifiers and post the
cross-reference table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 18 CFR 284.10(c)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koch contends the Commission should rescind this requirement,
because the D&B numbers are proprietary information and development of
a substitute cross-reference table would take a considerable amount of
time and could require substantial changes in pipeline computer systems
that are setup to use the D&B numbers.
The Commission denies Koch's rehearing request. Pipelines are
required by Commission regulations to publicly identify the names of
shippers, such as those involved in capacity release transactions.
Without a cross-reference table, no one receiving the numeric
identifier will be able to identify the shipper. Koch suggests that
this may not be information anyone wants. For one, the Commission
itself needs a cross-reference table to be able to monitor capacity
release transactions for possible discrimination. As other industry
participants begin to use EDI and other file transfers to obtain
information, they too are likely to need a cross-reference table to
monitor capacity release transactions.
Koch argues that the D&B information is proprietary, and D&B may
not permit disclosure. As the Commission made clear in Order No. 587-G,
if D&B is unwilling to permit development of a cross-reference table,
the industry can agree to use actual shipper names or develop its own
numeric identifier. If the industry took the latter course, no
modification of computer systems would be necessary, since the
identifier could use the same number of digits as the current D&B
numbers. Having to modify computer systems to accept names also should
not be unduly burdensome.
As an alterative to pipelines providing the D&B information, Koch
suggests the Commission should purchase the cross-reference table from
D&B. The Commission does not find this to be an acceptable solution. It
is the pipelines' responsibility to comply with Commission regulations
and disclose public information and the pipelines must, therefore,
choose a method that provides that information. After all, it was the
pipelines together with other segments of the industry, not the
Commission, who chose D&B numeric designations in the first
place.54 Moreover, the pipelines are the best source for
obtaining a complete database listing both the D&B numbers and shippers
on each of their systems, and they are responsible for devising a means
of providing publicly available information in an intelligible format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under
Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations, Order No. 563-A, 59 FR
23624 (May 9, 1994), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [Jan.
1991-June 1996] para. 30,994 at 31,043-44 (May 2, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Electronic Record Retention
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission required pipelines to maintain
for a period of three years all information displayed and all
transactions conducted electronically and to be able to recover and
regenerate all such electronic information when necessary.55
The pipelines must make this archived information available to users in
electronic form for a reasonable fee. This regulation essentially
continued the three-year recordkeeping requirement that applies to
pipeline EBBs.56
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 18 CFR 284.10(c)(3)(v).
\56\ 18 CFR 284.10(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Fuel requests clarification that the record retention
requirement applies to the substance of the information and does not
require the pipelines to maintain an exact visual image of the
information on the pipelines' web site. The Commission agrees. The
regulation does not require pipelines to maintain visual images of web
site information. It requires only that pipelines maintain the
substance of the information and provide that information, upon
request, in an easy to use electronic format including an explanation
describing the way in which the information is presented or formatted.
D. Issues on Which The Commission Did Not Promulgate Regulations
In Order No. 587-G, the Commission did not implement regulations as
requested by industry members in certain areas: title transfer
tracking, cross-contract ranking, multi-tiered allocations, fuel
reimbursement, and penalty determinations. The Commission did provide
guidance to the industry as to its policies in these areas to assist
the industry in developing standards and set a December 31, 1998 date
for submission by GISB and others of standards in these areas. Requests
for clarification were filed with respect to title transfer tracking
and fuel reimbursement
1. Title Transfer Tracking
Title transfer tracking refers to keeping records of transfers of
title at nomination points when no transportation is involved. In Order
No. 587-G, the Commission found insufficient justification to require
pipelines to perform title transfer tracking services. The Commission
concluded that shippers have responsibility for furnishing sufficient
information to establish their title to gas. The Commission further
recognized that shippers might want to use third-parties to track title
transfers and required pipelines to accept title transfer information
from third-parties. GISB
[[Page 53576]]
already is working on standards for dealing with title transfer
tracking and the Commission set December 31, 1998 for the submission of
proposed standards by GISB and others.
NGSA requests clarification that the Commission's guidance on title
transfer tracking should not foreclose the consideration by GISB of the
option of having pipelines provide title transfer tracking. It also
requests clarification that the Commission's statement does not
represent a final decision by the Commission on the propriety of
requiring pipelines to perform title transfer tracking. NGSA points to
a number of outstanding issues at GISB that it claims makes any final
Commission pronouncement on this issue premature.
As the Commission found in Order No. 587-G, it does not see a basis
for requiring pipelines to perform title transfer tracking service. The
Commission provided guidance to the industry on its policies regarding
title transfer tracking to ensure that continued debate over whether
pipelines should provide this service did not stymy GISB's
deliberations. GISB, and other industry participants, therefore, should
develop a set of business practice and electronic communication
standards dealing with the information a shipper needs to provide to
pipelines to establish the shipper's title to gas, as well as standards
establishing procedures for pipelines to receive title transfer
tracking information from third parties.
As the Commission stated in Order No. 587-G, its determination
should not foreclose discussion at GISB regarding options for dealing
with title transfer tracking. If GISB reaches a consensus that
pipelines should be required to provide this service, the Commission
will give such agreement great weight in future considerations of this
issue. Once GISB files the standards with the Commission, parties will
have an opportunity to file comments on the feasibility of particular
standards.
2. Reimbursement for Compressor Fuel
Fuel reimbursement refers to pipeline requirements that shippers
provide gas greater than their nominated quantity to compensate the
pipeline for the gas it uses to operate its compressors.57
The applicable fuel percentages are included in pipeline tariffs. The
process of calculating fuel reimbursement for shipment across multiple
pipelines, and pipeline zones, can be complex and the Commission has
adopted GISB standards to simplify this process. To further reduce the
difficulty of calculating fuel reimbursement, the Commission, in Order
No. 587-G, found that pipelines should accept fuel nominations from
third parties, such as marketers. The Commission, however, determined
not to impose this requirement until GISB had been given the
opportunity to consider standards for how this process would work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ For instance, if a shipper needs 100 MMBtus at its city-
gate, it may have to nominate an additional 10 MMBtus to compensate
the pipeline for its compressor fuel requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koch contends the cost and confusion of requiring pipelines to
accept fuel nominations from third-parties would exceed any benefit and
urges the Commission not to go forward with this requirement. Koch
asserts, for example, that such a requirement has the potential to
double the number of nominations pipelines have to process. KN also
believes that establishing separate procedures for third-party fuel
reimbursement is unnecessary, but urges the Commission to reserve
judgment until after GISB seeks to develop standards.
The Commission has set December 31, 1998 as the date for submission
of standards and comments on fuel reimbursement by GISB and others. The
Commission will evaluate its policy regarding third-party fuel
reimbursement upon receipt of these filings.
III. Effective Date
The amendments to the Commission's regulations adopted in this
order on rehearing will become effective November 5, 1998.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284
Continental shelf, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By the Commission.
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 284,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 284 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7532;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.
2. In Sec. 284.10, paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 284.10 Standards for Pipeline Business Operations and
Communications.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) A pipeline must implement this requirement no later than June
1, 2000.
* * * * *
Note--The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Parties Filing for Rehearing Docket No. RM96-1-009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Party filing rehearing
request Abbreviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altra Energy Technologies, Altra.
Inc.
American Gas Association, AGA, et al.
American Public Gas
Association, Process Gas
Consumers (Arizona Public
Service Company, Boeing
Company, Northwest
Industrial Gas Users, Salt
River Project and Phelps
Dodge Corporation).
ANR Pipeline Company and ANR/CIG.
Colorado Interstate Gas
Company.
Associated Gas Distributors AGDF.
of Florida, Inc.
Atlanta Gas Light Company and Atlanta/Chattanooga.
Chattanooga Gas Company.
The Brooklyn Union Gas Brooklyn Union/Long Island.
Company and Long Island
Lighting Company.
CNG Transmission Corporation. CNG.
Columbia Gas Transmission Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf.
Corporation and Columbia
Gulf Transmission Company.
Consumers Energy Company..... Consumers.
[[Page 53577]]
Salt River Project East-of-California Shippers.
Agricultural Improvement and
Power District, Arizona
Public Service Company, El
Paso Electric Company, PEMEX
Gas y Petroquimica Basica,
Phelps Dodge Corporation,
ASARCO, Inc., BHP Copper,
Inc., Cyprus Miami Mining
Corp., PNM Gas Services, El
Paso Municipal Customer
Group (Cities of: Mesa, AZ,
Safford, AZ, Benson, AZ,
Wilcox, AZ, Las Cruces, NM,
Socorro, NM, Deming, NM;
Town of Ignacio, CO, Navajo
Tribal Utility Authority;
Graham County Utilities,
Inc.; Duncan Rural Service
Corp.; and Black Mountain
Gas Company).
Eberly & Meade, Inc.......... Eberly & Meade.
El Paso Energy Corporation El Paso/Tennessee.
Interstate Pipelines.
Engage Energy US, L.P........ Engage.
Enron Capital & Trade ECT.
Resources Corporation.
Enron Interstate Pipelines... Enron.
Exxon Company, U.S.A......... Exxon.
Florida Cities, Southern Florida Municipals.
Cities, and Louisiana
Municipal Gas Association.
Florida Power Corporation.... Florida Power.
Great Lakes Gas Transmission Great Lakes.
Limited Partnership.
Independent Petroleum IPAA.
Association of America.
Intermountain Gas Company, Pacific Northwest Shippers.
IGI Resources, Inc., Cascade
Natural Gas Corporation,
Northwest Natural Gas
Company, and Washington
Water Power Company.
Interstate Natural Gas INGAA.
Association of America.
KN Interstate Pipelines...... KN.
Koch Gateway Pipeline Company Koch.
Louisville Gas & Electric Louisville.
Company.
Midland Cogeneration Venture MCV.
Limited Partnership.
NorAm Gas Transmission NGT/MRT.
Company and Mississippi
River Transmission
Corporation.
Missouri Gas Energy, a MGE.
Division of Southern Union
Company.
National Fuel Gas National Fuel Distribution.
Distribution Corporation.
National Fuel Gas Supply National Fuel.
Corporation.
Natural Gas Clearinghouse.... NGC.
Natural Gas Supply NGSA.
Association.
Peoples Gas System........... Peoples.
The Peoples Gas Light and Peoples/NorthShore.
Coke Company and North Shore
Gas Company.
PG&E Gas Transmission, PG&E GT-NW.
Northwest Corporation.
Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Piedmont.
Inc.
Public Service Company of PSCo/Cheyenne.
Colorado and Cheyenne Light,
Fuel and Power Company.
Reedy Creek Improvement Reedy Creek.
District.
Richardson Products Company.. RPC.
Southern Natural Gas Company. Southern.
TransCanada Gas Services, a TCGS.
Division of TransCanada
Energy Limited.
TransCapacity Limited TransCapacity.
Partnership.
Western Gas Resources, Inc... Western.
Williams Gas Pipelines....... WGP.
Williston Basin Interstate Williston Basin.
Pipeline Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-26677 Filed 10-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
