98-10685. Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 20072-20096]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-10685]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
    
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    
    18 CFR Part 284
    
    [Docket No. RM96-1-007; Order No. 587-G]
    
    
    Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas 
    Pipelines
    
    April 16, 1998.
    AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
    amending Sec. 284.10 of its regulations governing standards for 
    conducting business practices and electronic communication with 
    interstate natural gas pipelines. The Commission is incorporating by 
    reference, in Sec. 284.10(b), the most recent version (Version 1.2) of 
    standards promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB). The 
    Commission also is adopting, in new Sec. 284.10(c), regulations, not 
    developed by GISB, governing intra-day nominations, operational 
    balancing agreements (OBAs), netting and trading of imbalances, 
    standardization of communications over the public Internet, and notices 
    of operational flow orders. These business practices and communication 
    standards supplement standards adopted by the Commission in Order Nos. 
    587, 587-B, and 587-C. 61 FR 39053 (Jul. 26, 1996) 62 FR 5521 (Feb. 6, 
    1997), 62 FR 10684 (Mar. 10, 1997).
    
    DATES: Effective May 26, 1998. On August 1, 1998 pipelines must 
    implement Sec. 284.10(b), which incorporates by reference Version 1.2 
    of the GISB standards, and the regulations, in Secs. 284.10(c)(3)(ii) 
    through (v), relating to the standards for information posted on 
    pipeline web sites, the content of information provided electronically, 
    the use of numeric designations, and retention of electronic 
    information.
        The implementation date for the regulations regarding intra-day 
    nominations, Sec. 284.10(c)(1)(i), operational balancing agreements, 
    Sec. 284.10(c)(2)(i), trading of imbalances, Sec. 284.10(c)(2), and 
    Internet notification of critical notices, Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(vi), will 
    be established when the Commission adopts standards relating to these 
    activities.
    
    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 provides all 
    interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of 
    this document during normal business hours in Room 2A, 888 First 
    Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20426. The complete text on diskette in 
    WordPerfect format may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
    contractor, La Dorn Systems Corporation. La Dorn Systems Corporation is 
    located in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., 
    Washington, D.C. 20426.
        The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic 
    bulletin board service, also provides access to the texts of formal 
    documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to 
    the user. CIPS can be accessed over the Internet by pointing your 
    browser to the URL address: http://www.ferc.fed.us. Select the link to 
    CIPS. The full text of this document can be obtained in ASCII or 
    WordPerfect format. CIPS also 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. The full text of 
    this order will be available on CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1 
    format. CIPS user assistance is available at 202-208-2474.
    
    Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas 
    Pipelines
    
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    I. Background
    II. Discussion
        A. Introduction
        B. Regulations Adopted by this Rule
        1. Version 1.2 of the Standards
        2. Regulations Establishing Priority of Intra-Day Nominations
        3. Regulation Requiring Pipelines to Enter into Operational 
    Balancing Agreements
        4. Regulation Requiring Pipelines to Net Imbalances and Permit 
    Imbalance Trading
        5. Electronic Communication Using the Internet
        C. Issues on which the Commission Determined Not to Adopt 
    Requested Regulations
        1. Title Transfer Tracking
        2. Cross-Contract Ranking
        3. Multi-Tiered Allocations
        4. Paper Pooling
        5. Reimbursement for Compressor Fuel
        6. Penalty Determinations
        D. Market-Based Rates for Pipeline Services
        E. Implementation Schedule and Schedule for Submission of 
    Additional Standards
    III. Information Collection Statement
    IV. Environmental Analysis
    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
    VI. Effective Date
    
    Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, 
    William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt Heert, Jr.
    
        The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending 
    Sec. 284.10 of its regulations governing standards for conducting 
    business practices and electronic communication with interstate natural 
    gas pipelines. The Commission is incorporating 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 is adopting regulations, in new 
    Sec. 284.10(c) of its regulations, governing intra-day nominations, 
    operational balancing agreements (OBAs), netting and trading of 
    imbalances, standardization of communications over the public Internet, 
    and notices of operational flow orders.
    
    I. Background
    
        In Order Nos. 587, 587-B, and 587-C 1 the Commission 
    adopted regulations
    
    [[Page 20073]]
    
    to standardize the business practices and communication methodologies 
    of interstate pipelines in order to create a more integrated and 
    efficient pipeline grid. In those orders, the Commission incorporated 
    by reference consensus standards developed by GISB, a private, 
    consensus standards developer composed of members from all segments of 
    the natural gas industry. The standards established uniform 
    requirements for conducting critical industry business practices--
    Nominations, Flowing Gas, Invoicing, and Capacity Release. The 
    standards also required pipelines to use the Internet as the means of 
    conducting business transactions electronically as well as for 
    providing customers with general information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ 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).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In Order No. 587-C, however, the Commission did not adopt standards 
    approved by GISB concerning intra-day nominations, operational 
    balancing agreements, and imbalances. The Commission found that those 
    standards did not clearly outline the pipelines' obligations. The 
    Commission gave GISB and the industry until September 1, 1997 to 
    propose additional standards in these areas.
        In addition, throughout its deliberations in 1996, GISB had been 
    unable to reach consensus on whether standards are needed in several 
    areas--title transfer tracking, ranking of gas packages, treatment of 
    compressor fuel, operational balancing agreements, imbalance 
    resolution, operational flow orders, multi-tiered allocations, and 
    additional pooling standards. The Commission staff held a technical 
    conference on December 12-13, 1996, to consider these issues.
        Subsequently, on September 2, 1997, GISB filed with the Commission 
    its latest revisions to the consensus standards, Version 1.2. It also 
    filed a report on its progress in attempting to resolve the issues 
    reserved for further consideration by Order No. 587-C and some of the 
    disputed issues considered at the technical conference.
        In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) issued on November 12, 
    1997,2 the Commission proposed to adopt Version 1.2 of the 
    GISB standards. The Commission also considered the issues left 
    unresolved by GISB and proposed regulations that would require 
    pipelines to:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas 
    Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62 FR 61459 (Nov. 18, 
    1997), IV FERC Stats. & Regs. Proposed Regulations para. 32,527 
    (Nov. 12, 1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
         Give firm intra-day nominations priority over already 
    nominated and scheduled interruptible transportation (thus permitting 
    firm shippers to change their nomination quantities during the day and 
    bump scheduled interruptible service);
         Enter into operational balancing agreements at all 
    pipeline to pipeline interconnects;
         Permit shippers to offset imbalances across contracts and 
    trade imbalances amongst themselves when such imbalances have similar 
    operational impact on the pipeline's systems;
         Post all information and conduct all business transactions 
    using the public Internet and internet protocols by June 1, 1999 and 
    comply with other standards regarding communication over the Internet.
    Comments on the NOPR were due by December 18, 1997. Fifty-five comments 
    were filed.3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ The commenters, and the abbreviations used in this order, 
    are listed in the Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In addition, in several areas where the Commission did not propose 
    regulations, the Commission provided guidance in the NOPR on its 
    policies to aid GISB's development of standards in these areas. The 
    Commission asked for comment from GISB and the industry on the 
    development of standards in these areas by March 31, 1998. On March 23, 
    1998, GISB filed with the Commission a report containing its approved 
    intra-day nomination standards and a progress report on its process for 
    developing standards in the other areas discussed in the NOPR.
    
    II. Discussion
    
    A. Introduction
    
        Through GISB's consensus process, the gas industry has been able to 
    work together to pass a set of mutually-agreed upon standards that have 
    greatly contributed to providing a more efficient and reliable 
    transportation and communication system. In previous orders, the 
    Commission has recognized this contribution and incorporated the GISB 
    standards into the Commission regulations. But it is only to be 
    expected that a standards organization composed of representatives from 
    every facet of the gas industry would disagree over the need for 
    standards in certain areas, particularly when the disputes center on 
    regulatory policy decisions. Although some commenters take issue with 
    aspects of the regulations proposed in the NOPR, they virtually all 
    support the Commission's determination to resolve the divisive policy 
    disputes that are impeding GISB's standards development efforts.
        In this rule, therefore, the Commission is addressing the disputed 
    policy issues so that the industry can move forward and develop the 
    standards needed to further integrate the pipeline grid. The Commission 
    is adopting regulations establishing the scheduling priority of intra-
    day nominations for firm service and requiring pipelines to enter into 
    operational balancing agreements (OBAs) and to permit imbalance 
    trading. It also is standardizing communications by requiring that, by 
    June 1, 1999, all transactions between pipelines and their customers 
    will be transacted using the public Internet.
        The business practices regulations adopted here will enable 
    shippers to move gas more easily across multiple pipelines. 
    Establishing one rule governing the priority of intra-day nominations 
    will permit firm shippers to coordinate nomination changes across 
    multiple pipelines without having a different priority regime on one 
    pipeline break the nomination chain. The OBA and imbalance trading 
    regulations will increase the reliability of shipments crossing 
    multiple pipeline by reducing the business and financial risks of 
    imbalances and the associated penalties.
        The Commission's requirement that pipelines conduct all business 
    transactions over the public Internet represents the culmination of the 
    Commission's efforts to replace the current individual, and 
    idiosyncratic electronic bulletin board system of each pipeline, with a 
    standardized method of conducting business electronically across all 
    the pipelines. Although GISB's standards have moved much information 
    and many electronic transactions to the Internet, those standards are 
    incomplete and do not eliminate the need for shippers to use the 
    individual pipeline electronic bulletin boards. The adoption of this 
    regulation will fulfill the original vision of creating a system in 
    which all electronic communications and transactions will take place in 
    a standardized format.
        Creation of a standardized communication system promises to 
    markedly increase the efficiency of transactions. As just one small 
    example, in the past, shippers would have to log-on to each pipeline's 
    private bulletin board seriatim to obtain information on available 
    capacity on the pipeline. With the use of the Internet, shippers can 
    now easily use one Internet connection to go to GISB's homepage, click 
    on a pipeline's hypertext link, obtain the
    
    [[Page 20074]]
    
    information they want, and then return and find the information from 
    another pipeline, without having to log-off or change computers or 
    programs. Those shippers using GISB's standardized datasets can realize 
    even more efficiency because they can download the same information 
    from multiple pipelines in a standardized format and, if they choose, 
    directly import that information into their gas management systems or 
    other software programs where the information can be manipulated to 
    show the available capacity along a proposed path.
        The regulations adopted in this rule are not the final riff of the 
    standardization set.4 There is still much work to be done. 
    With the policy questions resolved, the Commission is looking to GISB 
    and the industry to develop the technical standards needed to implement 
    these policies in the most uniform and efficient manner possible. In 
    addition, in other areas, the Commission has outlined the need for the 
    development of additional standards and is establishing a timetable for 
    submission of standards in these areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ See Order No. 587, 61 FR at 39057, III FERC Stats. & Regs. 
    Regulations Preambles, at 30,060 (standards development is like a 
    jazz musician who takes a theme and constantly revises, enhances, 
    and reworks it).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Specifically, in this rule, the Commission is amending 
    Sec. 284.10(b) of its regulations to incorporate by reference the most 
    recent version of GISB's standards, Version 1.2. Pipelines must 
    implement the new version on the first day of the month following 90 
    days after the publication of this order in the Federal Register.
        Further, the Commission is establishing its own business practices 
    and communications standards in new Sec. 284.10(c) of its regulations. 
    The business practices standards will require pipelines to:
         Give firm intra-day nominations priority over already 
    nominated and scheduled interruptible transportation service and permit 
    firm intra-day 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 imbalance across contracts and 
    trade imbalances amongst themselves when such imbalances have similar 
    operational impact on the pipeline's systems.
        The electronic communication standards will require pipelines to:
         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.
        With respect to implementation of the requirements in 
    Sec. 284.10(c), the Commission is heeding the commenters who argue that 
    the Commission should defer implementation of some of the regulations 
    until GISB has developed the associated standards needed to implement 
    the requirements.5 The Commission agrees that implementation 
    of the intra-day nomination, OBA, imbalance trading, and critical 
    notice notification regulations would be more effective if they 
    occurred only once, after GISB and the industry have the opportunity to 
    develop appropriate standards. The Commission, therefore, will defer 
    implementation of these regulations to coincide with the implementation 
    of standards to implement these regulations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ See comments by ANR/CIG, Enron, INGAA, NGPL, NGC, NWIGU, 
    (intra-day standards), Altra (OBA and imbalance trading), 
    TransCapacity (imbalance trading), ECT, NGC, NGSA (critical 
    notices).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        A consensus of the industry supports GISB's Annual Plan for 1998 
    under which intra-day standards will be developed by the first quarter 
    of 1998 and OBA and imbalance trading standards by the second quarter 
    of 1998.6 GISB has already filed its completed intra-day 
    standards with the Commission, and the Commission will be issuing a 
    NOPR contemporaneous with this rule proposing to adopt the intra-day 
    standards. The Commission will establish a timetable for the filing of 
    proposed standards for OBA and imbalance trading that follows the 
    industry consensus in GISB's Annual Plan, with standards in these areas 
    due by June 30, 1998. Since GISB has not established a schedule for 
    developing standards for critical notices, the Commission is setting a 
    deadline of December 31, 1998, for submission of such standards. While 
    some commenters suggest that implementation of Internet communications 
    be delayed to coincide with GISB's development of 
    standards,7 the June 1, 1999 deadline already seems to build 
    in sufficient time for GISB and the industry to develop the necessary 
    standards, and the Commission will not change this date.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \6\ December 18, 1997 letter from INGAA, AGA, and NGSA to James 
    J. Hoecker (filed in Docket No. RM96-1-007).
        \7\ Comments by ANR/CIG, Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, Enron, 
    Koch, NGPL, NGSA, Southern.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In addition, in the November 12, 1997 NOPR, the Commission found no 
    need to propose regulations in other disputed areas--title transfer 
    tracking, cross-contract ranking, multi-tiered allocations, fuel 
    reimbursement, and penalty calculations. The Commission, however, did 
    provide guidance on its policy in these areas to remove obstacles to 
    the development of standards. The Commission requested comments from 
    GISB and the industry by March 31, 1998, proposing standards based on 
    the Commission guidance with respect to title transfer tracking and 
    cross-contract ranking.
        A consensus of the industry, as reflected in the GISB 1998 Annual 
    Plan, has recommended that due to resource commitments and the 
    difficulty of developing standards for title transfer tracking and 
    cross-contract ranking, the schedule for development of final standards 
    in these areas should be postponed until the fourth quarter of 1998. 
    The Commission will accept the industry consensus and delay the 
    deadline for submission of standards for title transfer tracking and 
    cross-contract ranking.
        The Commission will first address the regulations adopted by this 
    rule. The Commission will then discuss those areas in which it is not 
    adopting regulations requested by commenters, but instead is providing 
    policy guidance as to the direction of future standardization efforts.
    
    B. Regulations Adopted by This Rule
    
    1. Version 1.2 of the Standards
        a. Adoption of version 1.2. The Commission is adopting Version 1.2 
    of the GISB standards. Version 1.2 principally revises the datasets 
    used to conduct business transactions with the pipelines.8 
    Version 1.2 also contains interpretations of the standards. The 
    Commission proposed to adopt the interpretations, because, although 
    they would not be determinative, they would help to provide reliable 
    guides to the industry's understanding of the standards in the event 
    disputes arise.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \8\ The datasets are essentially a uniform template that 
    shippers can use to conduct business with multiple pipelines.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        No commenter has objected to adoption of Version 1.2 of the GISB
    
    [[Page 20075]]
    
    standards. TransCapacity and El Paso contend the Commission should give 
    great weight to the interpretations. Koch, SGPC, and ANR/CIG, while not 
    objecting to the adoption of the interpretations, maintain that 
    pipelines should not be required to modify their tariffs to incorporate 
    them. ANR/CIG also contend there is no need for pipelines to modify 
    their tariffs to incorporate the Version 1.2 standards by reference 
    unless their tariffs are inconsistent with the new standards.
        Version 1.2 improves the datasets to better reflect pipeline 
    business practices. The Commission will adopt Version 1.2 to be 
    implemented on the first day of the month following 90 days after the 
    publication of this order in the Federal Register. Pipelines need not 
    modify their tariffs to incorporate the interpretations, just as they 
    did not have to incorporate the GISB principles in their 
    tariffs.9 Pipelines, however, will need to make compliance 
    filings to adopt Version 1.2 of the standards into their tariffs since 
    their tariffs reflect an older version number.10 Pipelines 
    also will need to make any other tariff changes to conform their 
    tariffs to the new standards.11 The tariff changes must be 
    filed not less than 30 days prior to the date for implementing Version 
    1.2 of the standards.12
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \9\ Order No. 587 at 61 FR 39060, III FERC Stats. & Regs. 
    Regulations Preambles at 30,066.
        \10\ See Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 77 FERC para. 
    61,175, at 61,646 (1996) (pipelines incorporating standards by 
    reference in their tariffs must include number and version).
        \11\In filing to implement Version 1.2, pipelines need to change 
    all references to GISB standards in their tariffs to Version 1.2. 
    The version number applies to all standards contained in GISB's 
    Version 1.2 Standards Manuals, including standards that have not 
    changed from prior versions.
        \12\ 18 CFR 154.207.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        b. Hiatus in implementing new versions and waivers. The NOPR also 
    requested comment on two issues: Whether the Commission should refrain 
    from adopting further dataset changes for a period of a year or more 
    and whether the Commission should continue to grant pipelines waivers 
    that permit them to deviate from the standardized datasets. Many 
    commenters support the concept of a hiatus of about a year in order to 
    give pipelines and shippers a chance to implement the 
    standards.13 But even some of those supporting a hiatus 
    contend the hiatus could not be absolute, because there will be a need 
    to adjust the standards to clean-up errors 14 or to address 
    other compliance issues.15 Others urge that the current 
    schedule of issuing standards every six months or so is appropriate for 
    the start-up phase of software development in which errors need to be 
    corrected.16 Some also point out that new standards need to 
    be developed for new needs.17 In its March 23, 1998 filing, 
    GISB anticipates completion of Version 1.3 of the standards by July 
    1998. It then projects updates of various portions of the standards 
    occurring on an annual basis, with Version 2 (update of Flowing Gas and 
    Invoicing) by July 1999 and Version 2 (update of Nominations and 
    Capacity Release) by July 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \13\ Comments by Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf (one year), Duke 
    Energy Interstate Pipelines, Engage, Koch, Latitude (every two 
    years) MGE, NGC, NGSA, Nicor Gas, PG&E, ProEnergy, Williston Basin.
        \14\ See comments by Duke Energy Interstate Pipelines and Koch.
        \15\ See comment by NGSA and PG&E.
        \16\ Comments by Altra, ECT, Enron, INGAA, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, 
    TransCapacity.
        \17\ See comment by SoCal Gas/SDG&E.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Because the regulations adopted in this proceeding require changes 
    to the existing standards, granting a significant hiatus on adoption of 
    revised datasets at this time is inappropriate. To ensure that shippers 
    can fully take advantage of the benefits from the regulations, the 
    appropriate standards need to be implemented as soon as feasible. As 
    reflected in GISB's projected schedule, a longer time period between 
    adoption of revised versions may be more appropriate once the initial 
    phase of standardization is complete and the focus turns to maintenance 
    and improvement of the datasets.
        In implementing Order No. 587, the Commission granted pipelines two 
    types of waivers. It granted some, generally smaller, pipelines, whose 
    computer systems were not yet ready to implement the standards, 
    extensions of time to comply with the electronic communication 
    requirements.18 It also granted waivers permitting some 
    major pipelines to use non-standardized data elements to accommodate 
    specific business practices while their requests for changes to the 
    datasets were pending at GISB.19
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \18\See Gulf States Transmission Corporation, 79 FERC para. 
    61,102 (1997).
        \19\See Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 79 FERC para. 
    61,223 (1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the NOPR, the Commission asked whether the time for permitting 
    these waivers had ended and whether all pipelines should be required to 
    adhere to the Version 1.2 standards. The pipelines contend the 
    Commission should continue to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis if 
    a need is shown, although the comments did not differentiate between 
    the extensions of time for small pipelines to implement the standards 
    and the waivers for larger pipelines of dataset 
    compliance.20 Koch claims that Version 1.2 may still contain 
    errors that need to be corrected. Other commenters contend the need for 
    waivers has ended, and pipelines now need to conform to the 
    standardized data elements.21
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \20\ See Comments of Duke Energy Interstate Pipelines, INGAA, 
    Koch, NGPL, Williston Basin.
        \21\ See Comments of Altra, ECT, Engage, MGE, NGC, NGSA, PG&E, 
    SoCal Gas/SDG&E, TransCapacity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission will examine requests for extensions of waivers on a 
    case-by-case basis. However, because waivers are antithetical to the 
    concept of standardization, such extensions will be disfavored. Non-
    uniform implementation of the datasets on major pipeline systems, in 
    particular, creates burdens for shippers because they have to maintain 
    unique sets of data elements to conduct business solely on those 
    pipelines with waivers. Pipelines, therefore, will have a heavy burden 
    of justifying any request for a waiver of the data elements.
    2. Regulations Establishing Priority of Intra-Day Nominations
        The Commission is adopting regulations in Sec. 284.10(c)(1)(i) 
    establishing the scheduling priority for intra-day nominations. The 
    regulations require pipelines to accord an intra-day nomination 
    submitted by a firm shipper scheduling priority over nominated and 
    scheduled volumes for interruptible shippers. Pipelines are to provide 
    an interruptible shipper with advance notice that its scheduled volumes 
    are to be reduced as well as notice of whether penalties will apply on 
    the day its scheduled volumes are reduced. In addition, the regulation 
    requires that an intra-day nomination submitted on the day prior to gas 
    flow will take effect at the start of the gas day at 9 a.m. CCT.
        a. Background. (1) Commission policy on service priority. Under the 
    GISB standards, shippers submit initial nominations at 11:30 a.m. for 
    gas to flow on the next gas day (starting at 9 a.m.).22 An 
    intra-day nomination is any nomination submitted after the initial 
    nomination.23 An intra-day nomination can be made either on 
    the day prior to gas flow (after 11:30 a.m.) or on the day of gas 
    flow.24 The current standards require a pipeline to permit 
    one intra-
    
    [[Page 20076]]
    
    day nomination four hours prior to gas flow.25
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \22\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.
        \23\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.2.4.
        \24\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.2.7.
        \25\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.3.10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission's policy since Order No. 636 has been that firm 
    shippers, who pay reservation charges, are entitled to service superior 
    to that of interruptible shippers. Interruptible shippers, by 
    definition, take the risk that their service will be interrupted if 
    firm shippers choose to use their capacity.
        In Order No. 636, the Commission did not require pipelines to 
    provide intra-day nomination opportunities and, therefore, did not 
    address the intra-day priority issue in that rule. In the Order No. 636 
    restructuring proceedings, some pipelines were continuing or proposing 
    to add intra-day nomination opportunities. The Commission allowed them 
    to do so and also permitted those pipelines to continue tariff 
    provisions under which scheduled interruptible nominations would not be 
    bumped by firm intra-day nominations.
        However, as intra-day nominations became more prevalent, the 
    Commission's policy changed and it began to require that intra-day 
    nominations conform to its general policy giving firm service priority 
    over interruptible service.26 Thus, the Commission found 
    that firm service intra-day nominations should be entitled to bump 
    scheduled interruptible service. The Commission, however, concluded 
    that interruptible shippers should receive notice of their rescheduled 
    quantities and an opportunity to renominate.27 The 
    Commission also determined that bumped interruptible shippers should 
    not be subject to penalties directly related to the bump on the day on 
    which the bump takes place.28
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \26\ See Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 73 FERC para. 61,158, 
    at 61,456 (1995).
        \27\ Id.
        \28\Id. (daily variance charge waived, but only for the day on 
    which the bump takes place).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        When Order No. 587 required all pipelines to implement at least one 
    intra-day nomination, the Commission determined that those pipelines 
    filing to institute intra-day nominations on their systems had to 
    follow the general policy on service priority and permit firm intra-day 
    nominations to bump scheduled interruptible service upon reasonable 
    notice.29 On those pipelines with pre-Order No. 587 tariff 
    provisions that prohibited bumping of interruptible service, the 
    Commission permitted the no-bump provisions to stand, because the 
    pipeline filings were strictly compliance filings, and the Order No. 
    587 standards did not address the priority issue for intra-day 
    nominations.30
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \29\ See 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 para. 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).
        \30\ See Transwestern Pipeline Company, 78 FERC para. 61,146 
    (1997); Florida Gas Transmission Company, 77 FERC para. 61,177 
    (1996).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (2) GISB deliberations on intra-day nominations. In Order No. 587-
    C, the Commission recognized that the divergent ways in which pipelines 
    had implemented the intra-day nomination requirements prevented 
    shippers from coordinating their intra-day nominations across 
    interconnecting pipelines. The Commission requested that GISB provide 
    recommendations as to standards for coordinating intra-day nominations 
    by September 1, 1997.
        In its September 2, 1997 filing, GISB reported that it had been 
    able to reach certain agreements on intra-day issues; for example, it 
    submitted a proposed schedule establishing three synchronization times 
    when shippers could coordinate their intra-day nominations: 6 p.m. (to 
    take effect on the next gas day), and 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. to take effect 
    on the same gas day.
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AP98.004
    
    
        GISB reported, however, that it had been unable to resolve certain 
    policy issues, principally whether, and under what circumstances, 
    intra-day nominations by firm shippers could bump or displace 
    previously scheduled interruptible service. Interruptible shippers did 
    not want their service to be disrupted, while firm shippers argued that 
    their payment of reservation charges entitled them to nomination 
    priority over interruptible service.
        According to GISB's March 23, 1998 filing, it has approved the 
    intra-day synchronization schedule and, in addition, has passed 18 new 
    or revised intra-day nomination standards. The approved standards, 
    however, do not resolve the bumping question. If the Commission 
    determines to require bumping in this rule, the standards do not 
    resolve the question of when a firm intra-day nomination submitted on 
    the day prior to gas flow (6 p.m.) and which bumps interruptible 
    service would take effect. The standards leave that date to be 
    determined by the Commission in this rule.
        (3) NOPR proposals. In the November 12, 1997 NOPR, the Commission 
    agreed
    
    [[Page 20077]]
    
    that the three intra-day nomination times established by GISB would 
    significantly improve shippers' ability to coordinate intra-day 
    nominations. The Commission sought to achieve greater coordination in 
    intra-day scheduling by resolving the dispute within GISB over bumping 
    of interruptible service. The Commission proposed to follow its current 
    policy and require pipelines to provide for firm intra-day nominations 
    to bump scheduled interruptible service. The Commission also required 
    that an interruptible shipper be given notice that its scheduled 
    volumes would be reduced.
        While not proposing a regulation, the Commission sought to resolve 
    the dispute at GISB over the time at which an intra-day nomination 
    submitted at 6 p.m. (on the day prior to gas flow) which bumps an 
    interruptible shipper can take effect. The Commission concluded that 
    the firm intra-day nomination should take effect at the start of gas 
    flow at 9 a.m., rather than at 5 p.m. the next day, as suggested by 
    interruptible shippers. The Commission reasoned that firm shippers pay 
    for their service priority and have the right for their intra-day 
    nomination to take effect as soon as possible. In addition, in 
    accordance with the report from the GISB intra-day nomination task 
    force, the Commission stated that those pipelines permitting three 
    intra-day nomination opportunities could submit a request to exempt the 
    last intra-day nomination opportunity from the bumping rule. Providing 
    a final no-bump opportunity, the Commission reasoned, would provide 
    stability to the nomination process.
        The Commission will first address the comments on its proposal to 
    permit firm intra-day nominations to bump scheduled interruptible 
    service. The Commission will then address several related issues: the 
    imposition of penalties on bumped interruptible shippers, the provision 
    of an overnight rescheduling opportunity, the relative priority of firm 
    primary and firm secondary service, and the effect of its intra-day 
    standards on pipelines employing a rolling or continuous intra-day 
    process.
        b. Bumping. (1) Comments. Most commenters agree with the Commission 
    that industry-wide coordination of intra-day nominations is 
    needed,31 although a few contend that issue should be 
    addressed on a pipeline specific basis.32 And, a large 
    majority of the commenters support the Commission's decision that firm 
    intra-day nominations should bump interruptible, at least under some 
    circumstances.33
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \31\ Comments by AGA, Altra, Burlington, Centra Manitoba, 
    Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, ECT, Indicated End Users, K N Interstate 
    Group, National Fuel Distribution, NGC, NGSA, Nicor Gas, Pan 
    Alberta, Peoples/North Shore, PG&E, Piedmont.
        \32\ Comments by Koch, NWIGU, Viking, Williston Basin.
        \33\ Comments by Burlington, Cascade, Centra Manitoba, Columbia 
    Gas/Columbia Gulf, ECT, Engage, Florida Cities, FPL, Indicated End 
    Users, INGAA, MCV, Minnegasco, Mississippi Distributors, MoPSC, 
    MLGW, National Fuel Distribution, NGC, NGSA, NGPL, Pan Alberta, PGC, 
    et al., PGT, Peoples/North Shore, PG&E, Piedmont, ProEnergy, 
    ProLiance, SGPC, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, TVA. But see comments by Enron, K 
    N Interstate Group, Koch, Viking, Williston Basin (opposing 
    bumping).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The major area of disagreement is how to implement the bumping 
    requirement given the intra-day schedule proposed by GISB. NGC, NGSA, 
    ProEnergy, Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf take issue with the Commission's 
    determination that a firm shipper should be permitted to submit a 
    nomination at 6 p.m. (on the day prior to gas flow) to become effective 
    at 9 a.m. (the beginning of gas flow). They contend that permitting the 
    6 p.m. bump would decrease the value and certainty of interruptible 
    service. Since the interruptible shipper will not be notified of the 
    bump until after normal working hours, they assert, the shipper will 
    not know it has been bumped until the next morning and will have no 
    opportunity to renominate. NGSA is concerned that bumping at 9 a.m., 
    without a renomination opportunity before the bump takes effect, could 
    result in an unplanned shut-in of gas.34 Rather than a 9 
    a.m. effective time, these four parties contend the Commission should 
    establish that the 6 p.m. intra-day nomination becomes effective at 5 
    p.m. the next day so that interruptible shippers will have an 
    opportunity to renominate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \34\ These parties also note that firm shippers wanting greater 
    flexibility in nominations can subscribe to no-notice service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Taking a different tack, PGT and Pan Alberta do not object to the 
    timing of the 6 p.m. nomination, but contend that no bumping should be 
    permitted after gas starts to flow. They argue that permitting bumping 
    of flowing gas will devalue interruptible service and create logistical 
    difficulties for market participants by complicating the balancing 
    process and requiring last minute adjustments to marketing plans. They 
    further contend that permitting bumping after gas flows is inconsistent 
    with the Canadian practice, which will cause interconnection problems.
        Firm shippers, on the other hand, support the Commission's proposal 
    that firm intra-day nominations should bump interruptible service both 
    on the day prior to the gas day and on the gas day itself. They 
    particularly support the Commission's proposal that a firm intra-day 
    nomination at 6 p.m. will take effect at 9 a.m.35 They 
    contend that their payment of reservation charges entitles them to such 
    priority and that, if they nominate on the day prior to gas flow, that 
    nomination should be effective at the start of gas flow, rather than 
    eight hours later. Indicated End Users argue that delaying the bump 
    from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. essentially provides interruptible shippers 
    with eight hours of firm service while degrading the value of firm 
    service. Such a result, it asserts, is particularly inappropriate since 
    bumping occurs only on pipelines with no excess capacity, where firm 
    service is accordingly extremely valuable.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \35\ Comments by Indicated End Users, Mississippi Distributors, 
    National Fuel Distribution, PGC, et al., SoCal Gas/SDG&E, TVA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (2) Commission determination. The Commission has determined that 
    intra-day nominations for firm capacity should be given scheduling 
    priority over scheduled and flowing interruptible service. The vast 
    majority of the comments support this regulation, and the regulation is 
    consistent with the priority rights to which firm shippers are 
    legitimately entitled. This issue cannot be left to individual 
    determinations on a pipeline specific basis, as suggested by Koch, 
    NWIGU, Viking, and Williston Basin. Continuation of the current 
    bifurcated system is inconsistent with the creation of an integrated 
    pipeline grid and would effectively reduce the effectiveness of firm 
    shippers' intra-day nominations on the majority of pipelines that 
    permit bumping. A firm shipper nominating gas across multiple pipelines 
    needs to be able to coordinate its intra-day nominations. Under the 
    present system, if even one pipeline in its nomination chain has a no-
    bump rule, the shipper may be unable to have its entire chain of intra-
    day nominations confirmed. Thus, a single approach to bumping is 
    necessary to integrate the pipeline grid.
        With respect to the principal disputed issue--the effective time of 
    an intra-day nomination submitted on the day prior to gas flow (the 6 
    p.m. intra-day nomination under the GISB schedule)--the Commission 
    finds that the intra-day nomination should become effective at the 
    start of the gas day at 9 a.m., and will amend its regulations to make 
    clear that an intra-day nomination submitted on the day prior to gas 
    flow will take effect at the start of the gas day.
        Firm shippers are paying reservation charges for priority rights 
    and those
    
    [[Page 20078]]
    
    rights should include the right to have a nomination become effective 
    as early as possible on the gas day following the nomination. 
    Interruptible shippers voluntarily take the risk that their service 
    will be interrupted and while they are entitled to advance notice of 
    such interruption, they should not be able to prevent firm shippers 
    from having their nominations take effect at the earliest possible 
    time. Gas flows on the interstate grid 24-hours a day, and is consumed 
    throughout the day, so interruptible shippers need to be prepared to 
    adjust gas volumes even during non-business hours. The interruptible 
    shippers will receive sufficient advance notice (approximately 11 
    hours) to reduce flows if necessary. They will still have the two 
    additional intra-day opportunities during the gas day (the 10 a.m. and 
    5 p.m. intra-day opportunities) to reschedule their gas. And, 
    interruptible shippers have the tools, such as pooling, gas package 
    identifiers, and ranking, that they can use to manage their gas 
    supplies in the event of bump.36 If interruptible shippers 
    still find the bumping risk unacceptable, they have the opportunity to 
    obtain firm capacity either from the pipeline or through the capacity 
    release system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \36\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.3.18, 1.3.23, 1.3.24. See text accompanying notes 100 
    and 93, infra. Pooling together with ranking permit shippers to 
    designate which supplies or markets should be cut first in the event 
    scheduled volumes are reduced. Thus, producers can rank those supply 
    sources where volumes can be changed most easily as the first to be 
    cut in the event of a bump.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        While the commenters contend that bumping creates the risk that gas 
    will be shut-in without an opportunity to reschedule, that could occur 
    under the existing system as well. During the regular scheduling 
    process, an interruptible shipper takes a risk that a firm nomination 
    may result in a reduction in or termination of its flow from one day to 
    the next, a change that must take effect at 9 a.m. in the morning. 
    Prior to Order No. 587, many pipelines provided no opportunity for the 
    interruptible shipper to reschedule that gas prior to having to 
    implement the reduced flow. Even after Order No. 587, many pipelines do 
    not provide an intra-day scheduling opportunity prior to the start of 
    the gas day in which case the interruptible shippers are unable to 
    reschedule gas prior to the beginning of gas flow. Indeed, 
    interruptible shippers are better off in many ways under the new 
    regulation, than they were prior to the expansion of the intra-day 
    nomination process. Before adoption of multiple intra-day nominations, 
    interruptible shippers could have their volumes reduced with no 
    opportunity to renominate that gas, while under the multiple intra-day 
    nomination schedule, interruptible shippers bumped by a 6 p.m. intra-
    day nomination will still have two opportunities to reschedule gas on 
    an industry-wide basis (the 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. intra-day 
    opportunities).
        The Commission will follow the GISB consensus and permit pipelines 
    with three intra-day nomination opportunities to exempt the last intra-
    day opportunity from bumping. Both firm and interruptible shippers 
    support GISB's and the Commission's proposal that no bumping should 
    take place at the third intra-day nomination opportunity.\37\ Local 
    distribution companies (LDCs) contend that allowing bumping at the 
    third opportunity would interfere with their efforts to manage their 
    own systems. A few commenters contend that making the third intra-day 
    opportunity non-bumping is inconsistent with the priority to which firm 
    service is entitled.\38\ The Commission, however, agrees with the 
    consensus of the GISB members that making the third intra-day 
    nomination non-bumping creates a fair balance between firm shippers, 
    who will have had two opportunities to reschedule their gas, and 
    interruptible shippers and will provide some necessary stability in the 
    nomination system, so that shippers can be confident by mid-afternoon 
    that they will receive their scheduled flows.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \37\ Comments by Burlington, Engage, INGAA, NGSA, Nicor Gas 
    Peoples/North Shore.
        \38\ Comments by Cascade, TVA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        c. Penalties for bumped interruptible shippers. In Tennessee Gas 
    Pipeline Company,\39\ the Commission permitted the pipeline to 
    implement a tariff provision under which firm intra-day nominations 
    bumped scheduled interruptible gas, but waived the pipeline's daily 
    variance penalty for bumped interruptible shippers on the day of the 
    bump. Referring to this decision, the Commission, in the NOPR, stated 
    that pipelines filing to implement the regulation giving firm intra-day 
    nominations priority over scheduled interruptible gas should consider 
    whether bumped interruptible shippers should be exempt from certain 
    penalties on the day of the bump.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \39\ 73 FERC para. 61,158, at 61,456 (1995).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Pipelines as well as some shippers contend that the pipelines must 
    be able to assess penalties against interruptible shippers or else 
    shippers will have no incentive to comply with the bump and the 
    pipelines' management of their system will be jeopardized.\40\ Columbia 
    Gas/Columbia Gulf maintain that penalties should be waived only if the 
    interruptible shipper conforms its flow to the rescheduled volumes. The 
    pipelines contend that they do not have the system flexibility to 
    permit overuse of capacity even on a single day.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \40\ Comments by Enron, INGAA, NGPL, Nicor Gas, NGT/MRT, 
    Southern, TransCapacity, Cascade.
        \41\ See comments by INGAA, Enron, NGPL, Southern.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Shippers maintain that penalties should be waived for bumped 
    interruptible shippers.\42\ They contend that interruptible shippers 
    should not be subject to penalties when the shipper is unable to 
    reschedule gas and may not be able to get a point operator to change 
    physical volumes. NGC maintains the Commission should not just consider 
    waiving penalties, but affirmatively adopt a rule that no penalties can 
    be assessed on bumped shippers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \42\ Comments by ECT, FPL, National Fuel Distribution, NGC, 
    NGSA, PGC, et al.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Given the variety of penalty provisions in pipeline tariffs, the 
    waiver of penalties for bumped shippers will have to be considered when 
    pipelines make compliance filings. The Commission will set forth below 
    some general principles for assessing when pipelines should waive 
    penalties for bumped interruptible shippers. No penalties should be 
    imposed on bumped shippers if the pipeline fails to provide appropriate 
    notice of a bump. Once notified, shippers are expected to make a good 
    faith effort to adjust their flows to conform to revised scheduling 
    volumes. But the Commission recognizes that in some cases the shortened 
    notice period for intra-day nominations (three hours under the GISB 
    timeline) may make such adjustments difficult. As in Tennessee, 
    therefore, pipelines should waive non-critical penalties, such as daily 
    scheduling or variance penalties, for the day of the bump. But these 
    penalties would be waived only for the day of the bump; interruptible 
    shippers should remain responsible for the excess gas put on the system 
    and would be subject to all penalties in subsequent days resulting from 
    the excess gas.
        The Commission also recognizes the pipelines' need to maintain 
    control of their systems in critical situations, when they invoke 
    operational flow orders. In these cases, bumped interruptible shippers 
    may not be entitled to special treatment on penalties, because, when 
    OFOs are in effect, the pipelines are less likely to be able to absorb 
    extra gas on their systems and all shippers may have difficulty 
    adjusting to the OFO. Waiving penalties for bumped interruptible
    
    [[Page 20079]]
    
    shippers in critical situations, therefore, could come at the expense 
    of reduced service or increased penalties on other shippers. The 
    Commission, however, expects pipelines to comply with the principle 
    embodied in standard 1.1.14 which provides:
    
    where a nomination is required by the service provider to make an 
    effective physical change necessary to comply with an Operational 
    Flow Order, unless critical circumstances dictate otherwise, an 
    Operational Flow Order penalty should not be assessed unless the 
    shipper is given the opportunity to correct the circumstance giving 
    rise to the Operational Flow Order and fails to do so or the 
    action(s) taken fails to do so. The opportunity to correct the 
    critical circumstance should include the opportunity to:
        (a) Make a nomination, which, once confirmed and scheduled would 
    cure the circumstance giving rise to the Operational Flow Order, or
        (b) Take other appropriate action which cures the circumstance 
    giving rise to the Operational Flow Order.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \43\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.1.14.
    
    For instance, under this principle, where an OFO would require an 
    interruptible shipper (which is bumped by a firm service intra-day 
    nomination at 6 p.m. the day prior to gas flow) to make a nomination to 
    effect a physical change to comply with the OFO, the pipeline should 
    afford the interruptible shipper the opportunity to make a new intra-
    day nomination at the next intra-day nomination opportunity (10 a.m.) 
    to cure the circumstance giving rise to the OFO. If the interruptible 
    shipper can make such a change, no OFO penalties should be charged for 
    the period between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. when the interruptible shipper's 
    10 a.m. intra-day nomination would take effect. However, if the 
    interruptible shipper is unable to cure the OFO at the 10 a.m. intra-
    day nomination opportunity all applicable OFO penalties would apply. 
    These principles appear to strike a fair balance between the 
    operational needs of the pipelines and the protection of shippers.
        When pipelines file to implement the regulations, the Commission 
    will consider whether pipelines should waive specific penalties for 
    bumped interruptible shippers. Section 284.10(c)(1)(i)(A) also requires 
    pipelines to notify bumped interruptible shippers if penalties for 
    overrunning their scheduled quantities will apply on the day of the 
    bump.
        d. Other Issues. (1) Overnight rescheduling opportunity. In the 
    NOPR, the Commission decided not to propose a regulation requiring 
    pipelines to provide an overnight rescheduling opportunity for 
    interruptible shippers which are bumped. PGC, et al., contend that the 
    Commission should require pipelines to permit interruptible shippers to 
    renominate bumped supply overnight. NGPL, on the other hand, contends 
    that pipelines cannot provide overnight renominations, because 
    confirmation of these nominations could not take place in the evening 
    and early morning.
        Pipelines wishing to provide greater certainty to interruptible 
    shippers may provide an overnight opportunity for interruptible 
    shippers to reschedule bumped gas. However, the Commission agrees with 
    NGPL that given the confirmation difficulties occasioned by overnight 
    rescheduling, pipelines should not be required to provide such a 
    service. The 11 hour advance notice to interruptible shippers and the 
    interruptible shippers' ability to renominate at the 10 a.m. intra-day 
    opportunity provides sufficient protection to interruptible shippers.
        (2) Priority of firm capacity to primary and secondary points. In 
    the NOPR, the Commission restated its policy that, once scheduled, 
    intra-day nominations for firm service to primary receipt or delivery 
    points do not bump previously scheduled firm capacity to secondary 
    points. ECT, K N Interstate Group, and NWIGU support the current policy 
    that intra-day nominations to firm primary points do not bump already 
    scheduled gas at secondary points. ECT and NWIGU maintain that giving 
    firm primary and secondary points firm priority is necessary for the 
    capacity release process to work efficiently. On the other hand, MGE 
    and NGT/MRT contend the Commission should change the policy to give 
    intra-day nominations to firm primary points priority over previously 
    scheduled firm capacity at secondary points. They assert that firm 
    shippers pay for such primary point rights. Cascade maintains that 
    Commission policies permitting exceptions to priority rules need to be 
    reconsidered as the industry moves to a more continuous and contiguous 
    scheduling system under which the pipelines may reschedule the entire 
    system more frequently than once a day. Koch, PG&E, and SoCal Gas/SDG&E 
    request clarification that the Commission's statements of priority 
    regarding the impact of intra-day nominations on scheduled service to 
    firm secondary points do not affect specific resolution of priority 
    issues with respect to the Koch and El Paso pipelines.
        At this time, the Commission will not adopt a regulation requiring 
    pipelines to revise existing tariff priorities relative to the rights 
    of intra-day nominations to firm primary points to affect scheduled 
    volumes to firm secondary points. Given the potential effects of 
    changing the priority rules relating to intra-day nominations to 
    secondary points, such as potentially reducing the ability of shippers 
    to obtain released capacity and to use that capacity at secondary 
    points, changes in priority rules require additional consideration by 
    the Commission and the industry.
        (3) Pipelines processing intra-day nominations on a continuous or 
    rolling basis. Some pipelines currently process intra-day nominations 
    on a continuous or rolling basis permitting the shipper to choose when 
    to submit its intra-day nomination. Others use a batch process in which 
    all intra-day nominations are processed at the same time.
        CNG, Enron, Nicor Gas, Peoples/North Shore, Southern, and 
    TransCapacity contend that pipelines should be able to revise their 
    prior continuous intra-day nomination procedures to conform to the GISB 
    batch schedule. CNG maintains that pipelines should not be held to 
    prior intra-day schedules based on different operating assumptions. CNG 
    and Enron maintain that changing to a batch process should not be 
    deemed a degradation of service. Peoples/North Shore and Nicor Gas 
    maintain that continuous processing complicates LDCs' supply planning 
    because they have to make operational changes throughout the gas day.
        AGA, on the other hand, is concerned that pipelines currently 
    offering continuous service should not be able to unnecessarily degrade 
    their services by changing to the batch process. While Peoples/North 
    Shore support the batch process, they argue that pipelines offering 
    special services with more than the required number of intra-day 
    opportunities should not be able to reduce those to the standard three.
        Adoption of the three synchronization times is not necessarily 
    inconsistent with continuous intra-day processing, since the shipper 
    can simply choose whether to time its nominations to achieve synchrony 
    with other pipelines. However, if a pipeline finds that continuation of 
    the continuous process will disrupt its system, it should be able to 
    change its procedures to conform to the industry standards. The 
    efficiency gained by the entire industry in being able to coordinate 
    nominations across the pipeline grid outweighs any potential diminution 
    of service resulting solely from the change in the method of processing 
    the nominations. Pipelines, however, should not use the change to batch 
    processing to reduce the number of intra-day opportunities to which
    
    [[Page 20080]]
    
    shippers are entitled. Although these additional intra-day 
    opportunities are not coordinated across pipelines, they still provide 
    shippers with benefits, particularly to those shippers revising storage 
    or other nominations that do not need to be coordinated with 
    nominations on other pipelines.
    3. Regulation Requiring Pipelines To Enter Into Operational Balancing 
    Agreements
        In Sec. 284.10(c)(2)(i), the Commission is adopting a regulation 
    requiring each interstate pipeline to enter into an Operational 
    Balancing Agreements at all points of interconnection between its 
    system and the system of another interstate or intrastate pipeline.
        a. Background. An operational balancing agreement (OBA) is a 
    contract between two physically interconnected parties specifying the 
    procedures to be used in processing imbalances or differences in hourly 
    flows between the parties. GISB passed a standard requiring pipelines 
    to enter into OBAs at all interstate and intrastate pipeline 
    interconnects where economically and operationally feasible. In Order 
    No. 587-C, the Commission declined to adopt this standard, finding the 
    phrase economically and operationally feasible too vague to define 
    pipeline obligations. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require 
    interstate pipelines to enter into OBAs with all interconnecting 
    interstate and intrastate pipelines.
        b. Adoption of the regulation. Almost all the commenters either 
    support the regulation or do not oppose it. INGAA and some of the 
    pipelines suggest the regulation is not needed since OBAs already exist 
    at over 91% of interconnects between interstate pipelines. Enron 
    contends that, instead of mandating that pipelines enter into OBAs, the 
    Commission should adopt a regulation prohibiting pipelines from 
    enacting tariff provisions that inhibit the use of OBAs at interconnect 
    points.
        The Commission concludes the regulation is needed. As the 
    commenters point out, OBAs have increased the efficiency and 
    reliability of the pipeline grid. An OBA ensures that a shipper, once 
    it has properly nominated and had its gas confirmed, will not be 
    subjected to imbalance penalties resulting from the transfer of gas 
    between the pipelines. Enron's suggestion that the Commission limit the 
    regulation to one that merely prohibits pipelines from adopting tariff 
    provisions inhibiting the development of OBAs does not go far enough, 
    because it imposes no affirmative obligation on the pipelines to enter 
    into OBAs.
        Other issues raised by the comments will be discussed below.
        c. Definition of intrastate pipeline. Section 284.10(c)(2)(i) 
    requires interstate pipelines to enter into OBAs at all interstate and 
    intrastate pipeline interconnects. The comments principally concern the 
    scope of the term intrastate pipeline. The pipelines contend it should 
    be limited to intrastate pipelines only (defined by Koch as those with 
    transmission facilities that do not cross state lines) and should not 
    include gatherers and LDCs.44 ANR/CIG contend it should 
    include only intrastate pipelines regulated by the Commission which 
    would obviate the possibility that interstate pipelines would have to 
    file for waivers if they cannot negotiate an acceptable OBA with an 
    unregulated entity. The pipelines argue that expanding the requirement 
    to gatherers and LDCs would be too burdensome, particularly if they had 
    to file for a waiver every time they could not negotiate an acceptable 
    agreement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \44\ Comments by ANR/CIG, Enron, INGAA, Koch, National Fuel 
    Distribution, SGPC, Williston Basin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        TransCapacity and PGC, et al., assert the requirement should extend 
    to all interconnect points where nominations need to be confirmed with 
    multiple parties behind the point, specifically including interconnects 
    with LDCs and gatherers. TransCapacity contends that the burden of 
    including these points is minimal if GISB develops a model OBA.
        The proposed regulation uses the term intrastate pipeline, as 
    contained in the original GISB formulation. The term intrastate 
    pipeline should apply to pipelines providing transmission services, as 
    opposed to gathering or local distribution functions. To aid in 
    identifying those pipelines to which the regulation applies, the term 
    will apply to all pipelines performing interstate transportation that 
    are subject to the Commission's regulations under Subparts C and G of 
    Part 284.45 As National Fuel Distribution suggests, this 
    constitutes a good beginning, but, after experience is gained, 
    consideration should be given to expanding the definition so that 
    interstate pipelines will be expected to negotiate OBAS with all those 
    transporting gas for others, such as gatherers and LDCs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \45\ 18 CFR 284.121-126; 18 CFR 284.224.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        As ANR/CIG suggest, since the requirement applies only to OBAs 
    between interstate pipelines and intrastate pipelines regulated by the 
    Commission, pipelines have no need to file for waivers. While the 
    Commission expects that interconnecting parties will be able to 
    negotiate acceptable OBA conditions, if an intractable dispute should 
    arise, they can submit the dispute to the Commission for resolution.
        d. Date by which pipelines must execute OBAs. Enron questions 
    whether pipelines can be expected to enter into an OBA by a date 
    certain, while NGC contends the Commission needs to set an outside date 
    by which the OBA process must be completed. The Commission recognizes 
    that pipelines must be given some time to negotiate and enter into OBAs 
    and, therefore, would expect that pipelines should be able to complete 
    the OBA process within three months after the Commission adopts final 
    regulations governing OBAs.
        e. Requirement to make OBA contracts available. NGPL objects to the 
    requirement that pipelines maintain OBAs and provide them to requesting 
    parties, asserting the Commission has offered no justification for the 
    requirement. NGPL would not object to posting the OBA operator and the 
    points covered by the OBA. PG&E contends OBAs are proprietary contracts 
    and should be filed under seal. SoCal Gas/SDG&E and TransCapacity 
    maintain OBAs must be publicly available.
        Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act requires that pipelines:
    
    file * * * and shall keep open in convenient form and place for 
    public inspection, schedules showing all rates and charges for any 
    transportation or sale * * * and the classifications, practices, and 
    regulations affecting such rates and charges, together with all 
    contracts which in any manner affect or relate to such rates, 
    charges, classifications, and services.
    
    Since OBAs are contracts relating to the provision of transportation 
    service, they are jurisdictional. The Commission, however, has not 
    required pipelines to file OBAs with the Commission.46 
    Instead, pipelines must make them available, along with all relevant 
    records of volumes and amounts paid under OBAS, to the Commission and 
    any person requesting copies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \46\ See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 65 FERC 
    para. 61,315, at 62,437 (1994) (although OBAs are jurisdictional, 
    filing is unnecessary if copies are made available by the pipeline).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        f. Development of a standard OBA and other issues relating to 
    negotiation and implementation of OBAs. Several commenters contend that 
    GISB should develop a standard OBA and pipelines should be required to 
    accept the standard OBA.47 A standard OBA, they assert, will 
    reduce the burden of having to individually negotiate OBA terms in
    
    [[Page 20081]]
    
    every instance. The pipelines oppose a requirement that they adhere to 
    a standard OBA, because, they assert, an OBA needs to deal with issues 
    specific to the interconnected parties.48
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \47\ Comments by NGC, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, TransCapacity.
        \48\ Comments by CNG, INGAA, K N Interstate Group.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Development of a standard OBA would be of significant value in 
    setting forth terms that are reasonably fair to both parties, and GISB 
    should work on developing such a contract. Pipelines, however, would 
    not have to agree to the standard OBA if its terms are inapplicable in 
    a particular situation.
        Pipelines raise questions about negotiation and implementation of 
    OBAs. El Paso seeks clarification that it can insist on inclusion of 
    certain necessary terms, such as creditworthiness guarantees and other 
    assurances of performance. K N Interstate Group, Koch, and NGPL ask if 
    pipelines can terminate OBAs for non-performance. NGT/MRT ask whether 
    pipelines can reject OBAs, without filing for a waiver, where the OBA 
    would inhibit pipeline operations. SGPC raises concerns about having to 
    enter into unreasonable terms and conditions with unregulated entities, 
    such as gatherers.
        Pipelines can insist that OBAs contain reasonable terms that are 
    standard in the industry. Development of a standard OBA would provide a 
    benchmark for comparison. Based on the history of OBAs, the Commission 
    does not expect numerous cases in which parties fail to perform. 
    However, pipelines would have a right to terminate an OBA for 
    substantial, consistent non-performance, but must do so in a non-
    discriminatory fashion and should make every effort to work out any 
    difficulties with the other contracting party.
        Pipelines cannot unilaterally decide not to enter into an OBA with 
    an interconnecting pipeline. As discussed previously, interstate 
    pipelines must enter into OBAs only with intrastate pipelines regulated 
    by the Commission. Any disputes over OBA terms and conditions between 
    interconnected parties can be submitted to the Commission for 
    resolution.
        NGSA argues the OBA regulation should be expanded to require the 
    downstream party to adhere to the pre-determined allocations of the 
    upstream party. Without such a requirement, it claims the OBA cannot 
    properly allocate volumes to the appropriate downstream customer when 
    capacity is scarce.
        The Commission, at this time, does not have sufficient information 
    to impose this as a requirement for all OBAs. As NGSA recognizes, this 
    issue is related to the question of how to handle multi-tiered 
    allocations on which GISB will be developing standards by the fourth 
    quarter of 1998. GISB should consider how to handle upstream and 
    downstream pre-determined allocations when it considers the issues 
    relating to a standard OBA and multi-tiered allocations.
    4. Regulation Requiring Pipelines To Net Imbalances and Permit 
    Imbalance Trading
        In Sec. 284.10(c)(2)(ii), the Commission is requiring pipelines to 
    permit shippers (including 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. In their filings to comply with this regulation, each 
    pipeline must delineate the largest operational area in which 
    imbalances can be traded without affecting system operations. Pipelines 
    also will be expected to propose procedures governing the method by 
    which they will post and process imbalance trades provided to them by 
    shippers or shippers' agents, including third-party firms that would 
    conduct imbalance trading for shippers. GISB is examining standards to 
    make the posting and processing of imbalance trades more uniform and 
    efficient, and the Commission will defer implementation of the 
    imbalance trading requirement until after approval of standards 
    governing imbalance trading, which are due to be filed on June 30, 1998 
    according to GISB's 1998 Annual Plan.
        Under the regulation, pipelines are not required to establish a 
    computerized system on which trading would take place, although they 
    would be free to establish such a system and to assess a separate fee 
    for using that system. If a pipeline does establish its own trading 
    system, it must provide equal and non-discriminatory access for 
    shippers trading their own imbalances or those using third-party 
    services.
        The Commission will address below the comments dealing with the 
    adoption of the requirement itself and the operational details.
        a. Adoption of imbalance trading. Most of the comments favor or do 
    not oppose the imposition of imbalance trading.49 Those 
    supporting imbalance trading contend that it is needed to offset the 
    tightened balancing tolerances, increased penalties, and gas forfeiture 
    provisions implemented by pipelines.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \49\ Comments by Altra, Burlington, ECT, Engage, INGAA, K N 
    Interstate Group (pipelines account for imbalances differently and 
    pipelines should define operational impact), MoPSC, MGE, NGPL, NGC, 
    NGSA, Nicor Gas, Peoples/North Shore, PGC, et al., PG&E, ProEnergy, 
    ProLiance, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, TransCapacity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        WGP and SGPC oppose the requirement, contending that permitting 
    imbalance trading could reduce financial incentives for shippers to 
    stay in balance. WGP also argues that if a pipeline accounts for 
    operational imbalances at the end of the month, a severe imbalance in 
    one direction at the beginning of the month would not be operationally 
    offset by a corresponding imbalance running the other way at the end of 
    the month.
        Permitting shippers to trade imbalances in the same operational 
    area enables shippers to avoid imbalance charges without jeopardizing 
    system reliability. When individual shipper imbalances offset each 
    other, the pipeline as a whole is in balance. The Commission does not 
    agree with WGP and SGPC that imbalance trading will significantly 
    weaken shippers' incentives to stay in balance. As NGSA points out, 
    shippers are unlikely to allow large imbalances to accumulate, because 
    they run the risk that they will be subject to penalties if they are 
    unable to find a shipper with an offsetting imbalance with whom to 
    trade. For example, if one shipper has a financial incentive to 
    underdeliver gas, other shippers likely will have the same incentive 
    and all the imbalances will run in the same direction and be 
    untradable. Thus, imbalance trading will ensure that imbalance 
    penalties are linked more closely to operational integrity, so that 
    shippers are not penalized for imbalances that do not affect pipeline 
    operations.
        WGP's example of imbalances occurring at different times of the 
    month appears to have little to do with imbalance trading. Currently, a 
    single shipper may run positive imbalances early in the month and 
    negative ones at the end of the month. Despite WGP's concern about 
    potential adverse operational affects on a daily basis, the shipper's 
    imbalances will offset each other by the end of the month, resulting in 
    no imbalance penalties. Thus, establishing imbalance trading on a 
    monthly basis will not change the relative operational impacts of 
    imbalances on a daily basis.
        b. Operational details. Most of the commenters address operational 
    aspects of imbalance trading, such as whether imbalances can be traded 
    across rate schedules, the role of agents, and what services pipelines 
    are required to provide.
    
    [[Page 20082]]
    
        (1) Accommodating imbalance trading to system requirements. INGAA 
    argues that each pipeline should be able to accommodate imbalance 
    trading to the requirements of its system. The regulation does permit 
    each pipeline to structure imbalance trading to its system, because 
    pipelines need only permit imbalance trading in areas where the 
    imbalances have similar operational effect. When pipelines file to 
    comply with this requirement, they must define the largest possible 
    areas on their systems in which imbalances have similar operational 
    effect and explain why imbalances crossing those lines are not 
    sufficiently similar in operational effect.
        (2) Trading across rate schedules or rate zones. Section 
    284.10(c)(2)(ii) requires pipelines to permit imbalance trades as long 
    as they have similar operational impact on the pipeline. Some of the 
    pipelines contend that further restrictions are appropriate. ANR/CIG, 
    El Paso, and NGPL contend imbalance trading should be limited to trades 
    within rates zones.
        Whether imbalance trading should be permitted across rate zones 
    depends on the operational characteristics of the 
    pipeline.50 As stated earlier, each pipeline must delineate 
    in its compliance filing, the largest operational area in which 
    imbalances can be traded without affecting system operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \50\ Trunkline Gas Company, 64 FERC para. 61,141, at 62,134 
    (1993) (denying request for netting of imbalances across rate zones 
    where the imbalance within each zone may have operational impact on 
    system operations).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Other pipelines contend they should not have to permit imbalance 
    trades that affect transportation charges.51 El Paso 
    maintains a pipeline may lose revenue if imbalances on discounted 
    contracts are traded with those on full price contracts. Williston 
    Basin argues that imbalances should not be traded across different 
    contract classes, providing the following example. If a shipper has a 
    positive imbalance of 1,000 Dth under an interruptible contract 
    52 and trades that imbalance with a shipper that has a 1,000 
    Dth negative imbalance on a firm contract,53 Williston Basin 
    claims it would have received revenues only on 100 Dth at the higher 
    interruptible rate and revenues based on 1,100 Dth at the lower firm 
    commodity rate. Williston Basin contends that if the trade was between 
    interruptible contracts alone, it would receive revenues on 1,200 Dth 
    at the higher interruptible rate. (100 Dth for the shipper with the 
    positive imbalance and 1,100 Dth for the shipper with the negative 
    imbalance).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \51\ Comments by Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, Enron, El Paso, 
    Williston Basin.
        \52\ The shipper delivers 1,100 Dth into the system of which the 
    pipeline delivers only 100 Dth off the system.
        \53\ The shipper delivers 100 Dth into the system and the 
    pipeline delivers 1,100 Dth off the system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Permitting pipelines to limit imbalance trading to contracts within 
    the same rate schedule would significantly reduce the efficacy of the 
    imbalance trading program and is unrelated to operational needs of the 
    pipeline. Trading would be restricted because shippers would not only 
    have to search out offsetting imbalances in the same operational area, 
    they would have to find offsetting imbalances under the same rate 
    schedule. Such a restriction on trading is unrelated to pipeline 
    operations since, regardless of the rate schedule under which the gas 
    is shipped, the pipeline is physically in balance so long as imbalances 
    net out.
        The pipelines have not made clear how they lose transportation 
    revenue from imbalance trading across firm and interruptible or maximum 
    rate and discounted contracts.54 The Commission's policy is 
    to require pipelines to permit shippers to offset imbalances across 
    contracts under different rate schedules.55 If a pipeline 
    can document that such trading will cause a loss of transportation 
    revenue, the solution is not to restrict imbalance trading, but for the 
    pipeline to devise an appropriate mechanism to ensure that it is made 
    whole for all appropriate transportation charges.56
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \54\ In the example given by Williston Basin, the pipeline's 
    transportation revenues for the quantity of gas delivered for each 
    shipper appears the same with or without imbalance trading. The 
    pipeline delivers only 100 units of interruptible volume and charges 
    for the amount delivered. The only potential loss of revenue would 
    be from resolution of the imbalance through cash-out. Under 
    Commission policy, however, pipelines are not entitled to such 
    penalty revenue; such charges are imposed only to discourage conduct 
    inimical to the operations of the system.
        \55\ See Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, 64 FERC para. 
    61,009, at 61,066 (1993); Trunkline Gas Company, 64 FERC para. 
    61,141, at 62,133 (1993); Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, 63 
    FERC para. 61,188, at 62,373 (1993).
        \56\ See Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, 64 FERC para. 
    61,009, at 61,066 (1993).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (3) Pipeline fees for providing imbalance trading services. 
    Commenters raise questions about the pipelines' ability to charge fees 
    for imbalance trading services. NGPL is uncertain which services 
    pipelines must provide and for which a fee can be charged. NGC contends 
    that pipelines with current imbalance trading programs should not be 
    able to charge a fee and that no fee should be charged for shippers 
    trading amongst themselves. CNG and Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf contend 
    the pipelines should not post imbalances, but provide a space on their 
    EBB or web site for shippers to post imbalances. Altra is concerned 
    that pipelines may abuse the imbalance trading process by establishing 
    affiliates with preferential access to pipeline delivery and receipt 
    information. Altra further maintains pipelines should be precluded from 
    hosting the trading process, because it fears that allowing the 
    pipelines to participate in a rate-based environment would preclude 
    competitive markets from working most efficiently.
        To clarify, pipelines will be required, without charging a separate 
    fee, to notify shippers of their imbalances and post imbalances 
    automatically if shippers provide pipelines with standing authority for 
    posting. Pipelines also should permit shippers the opportunity to post 
    their own imbalances in the same location. Pipelines also must process, 
    without charging a separate fee, imbalance trades submitted by shippers 
    or third-parties acting to facilitate imbalance trading.
        The posting of imbalances will permit shippers to negotiate their 
    own trades. Pipelines also can set up an imbalance trading or auction 
    process by which shippers can arrange to trade imbalances and charge a 
    separate fee for this service. The Commission will not forbid pipelines 
    from hosting such an imbalance trading service, as Altra suggests, 
    since such a prohibition would limit potential competition. If 
    pipelines charge a separate fee for such a service, third-parties 
    providing a similar service should not be unduly disadvantaged. 
    Pipelines establishing such a system or dealing with an affiliate, 
    however, must act non-discriminatorily in processing imbalance trades 
    submitted by shippers or third-parties and comply with the Commission's 
    standards of conduct with respect to sharing of relevant information.
        (4) Standards and procedures for trading imbalances. Commenters 
    raise questions about the procedures that pipelines should adopt to 
    facilitate netting of imbalances and imbalance trading.57 
    PG&E argues pipelines should file tariff changes to establish the 
    protocols for imbalance trading so shippers can comment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \57\ ECT argues pipelines should automatically offset imbalances 
    across a shipper's contracts. Enron argues that pipelines need to 
    establish practical parameters for trading such as setting a fixed 
    time frame for shippers to trade imbalances, keeping the pipeline 
    out of shipper trading negotiations and agreements, except to 
    process the resulting adjustments to the parties, and limiting 
    trading activity to the immediately preceding production month's 
    activity to avoid cross-month price arbitrage.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    [[Page 20083]]
    
        As discussed earlier, the development of standards for processing 
    imbalance trading would make the process more efficient, and the 
    Commission, therefore, is deferring implementation of the imbalance 
    netting and trading requirement until after approval of standards 
    governing imbalance trading, which are due to be filed on June 30, 1998 
    according to GISB's 1998 Annual Plan. Pipelines will have to make 
    tariff filings to establish the parameters of their trading areas as 
    well as other aspects of their programs, if not covered by the 
    standards. At that time, shippers will have an opportunity to comment 
    on these provisions.
        Enron and Koch raise questions about a statement in the NOPR that 
    shippers may be willing to put gas on a pipeline system for a fee in 
    order to resolve another shipper's imbalance. Koch maintains that 
    shippers should not be physically permitted to add or take away gas to 
    resolve historic imbalances. Enron requests clarification that 
    imbalance trading should reflect end of the month imbalances and not 
    daily incremental needs.
        The Commission will clarify that the regulation relates to the 
    pipelines' current methods for accounting for imbalances and does not 
    require pipelines to institute daily imbalance procedures, if they are 
    not already present on the system. However, if a pipeline presently 
    imposes daily imbalance penalties, it should establish a means of 
    permitting shippers to trade those imbalances before assessing 
    penalties. The regulation also does not require pipelines to permit 
    shippers to add gas to the system at other than the normal scheduling 
    opportunities.
        (5) Agents. The Commission has proposed to allow agents for 
    shippers to offset imbalances across contracts and to trade imbalances. 
    National Fuel Distribution contends that permitting agents to provide 
    an imbalance netting service will diminish pipelines' control of their 
    systems. Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf contend that offset and trade 
    options should not be extended to shippers' agents unless they are 
    acting for the shipper. They contend agents do not have title to the 
    gas, but act only as a surrogate for nominating supplies and some 
    contracting activity. ProLiance argues that there is no reason to 
    exclude agents from imbalance netting or trading.
        National Fuel Distribution does not explain why permitting agents 
    to participate in netting imbalances or trading imbalances will affect 
    pipelines' control of their systems. As long as imbalances offset each 
    other within the relevant operational area, there should be no negative 
    operational effects on the pipeline. In fact, since all shippers will 
    be able to trade imbalances, there is no reason why agents should not 
    be able to offset imbalances on the contracts they manage. Columbia 
    Gas/Columbia Gulf's concern with agents is similarly unclear. For 
    imbalance trading to work efficiently, pipelines must process imbalance 
    trades by those acting on behalf of shippers. A third-party, for 
    example, may establish a computerized service to facilitate imbalance 
    trades for shippers, and the pipeline will need to process the results 
    of those trades. Any issues with establishing the proper scope of 
    agency should be worked out between the pipeline, the third-party, and 
    the parties involved.
    5. Electronic Communication Using the Internet
        a. Background. For many years, pipelines have communicated with 
    their customers using direct dial up connections to pipeline Electronic 
    Bulletin Boards (EBBs). Each pipeline EBB is a proprietary system, with 
    unique software, log-on, and other procedures. The uniqueness of each 
    pipeline's EBB raises costs to those who ship across multiple 
    pipelines, since shippers must maintain redundant computers and 
    communication software and train their staff in the idiosyncracies of 
    each pipeline's system.
        Creating greater standardization in electronic communication was 
    one of the first standardization tasks the Commission and GISB 
    undertook. The current communication system reflects a tripartite 
    approach. First, shippers can still use EBBs to conduct interactive 
    transactions with the pipelines and obtain information from the 
    pipelines.
        Second, pipelines must permit shippers to conduct many of the 
    important business transactions in the industry, such as nominations, 
    flowing gas, invoicing, and capacity release, using datasets in ASC X12 
    electronic data interchange (EDI) format 58 transmitted over 
    the Internet. An EDI dataset is a highly structured or formatted method 
    of conducting computer-to-computer communication.59 To make 
    use of EDI over the Internet, the user must have its own Universal 
    Resource Locator (URL) address 60 and be able to translate 
    the formatted information into the report or display it desires. For 
    instance, a user could, if it wanted, translate the EDI information 
    into the same display it now receives from an EBB. Or, it could use the 
    EDI data to feed a more sophisticated gas management computer system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \58\ ASC X12 is a standardized format for electronic 
    transmission of documents. Standards for the use of such documents 
    are promulgated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
    Accredited Standards Committee (ASC).
        \59\ An EDI dataset is analogous to a spread-sheet with each 
    block or location containing specific information that is then 
    processed by a computer. A computer program can translate from the 
    raw EDI data to whatever format or display the user wants.
        \60\ To maintain a URL address, the user has to have its own 
    Internet server and establish a connection to the Internet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Third, some information, such as pipeline tariffs, affiliate 
    information, and available capacity, that is posted on EBBs also is 
    posted on pipeline web sites.61 This information, however, 
    is not transactional, like a nomination, in which the shipper needs to 
    communicate with the pipeline; the information is posted on web sites 
    for shippers to read or to download.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \61\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(i)(iv) (1997), Electronic Delivery 
    Mechanism Related Standards 4.3.6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Although GISB's standards state that all current EBB transactions 
    should be achieved through one mode of communication,62 the 
    standards developed by GISB do not cover all transactions now conducted 
    electronically over EBBs. Pipelines are continuing to post information 
    and conduct many transactions on their proprietary EBBs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \62\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(iv) 1997), Electronic Delivery 
    Mechanism Related Standards 4.3.6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In Sec. 284.10(c)(3), the Commission is adopting a series of 
    regulations to standardize electronic communication, specifically 
    requiring pipelines to: post all information and conduct all business 
    transactions using the public Internet and internet protocols by June 
    1, 1999; adhere to specific standards in posting information on 
    pipeline web sites and in maintaining electronic records; and provide 
    shippers with notice of critical system events by using the Internet. 
    The Commission will discuss these requirements below.
        b. Regulation requiring pipelines to conduct all transactions over 
    the Internet. In Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(i), the Commission is requiring 
    pipelines to provide all electronic information and conduct all 
    electronic transactions over the public Internet. The Commission 
    further is requiring pipelines to provide private networks with non-
    discriminatory connections using internet tools, internet directory 
    services, and internet communication protocols upon payment of a 
    reasonable fee to recover the costs of providing such an 
    interconnection. The comments address both the Commission's proposed 
    use of the Internet to conduct all transactions and various aspects of
    
    [[Page 20084]]
    
    its implementation, which are discussed below.
        (1) The requirement to use the internet to conduct transactions. 
    The commenters generally support the requirement to move transactions 
    to the Internet to establish a single, efficient mode of conducting 
    business with all pipelines.63 Only two commenters oppose 
    requiring pipelines to move all electronic communication to the 
    Internet. Koch argues that, rather than requiring that all transactions 
    be conducted over the Internet, the Commission should require pipelines 
    to conduct only basic, minimum transactions over the Internet, such as 
    the EDI transactions contained in Version 1.2 of the datasets. 
    Wisconsin Distributors contend that the Internet may not be reliable 
    enough and that pipelines must have back-up systems, such as EBBs, 
    available to avoid degradation of reliability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \63\ See comments by Altra, CNG, Duke Energy Interstate 
    Pipelines, ECT, Engage, Enron, Gaslantic, INGAA, K N Interstate 
    Group, Latitude, MGE, NGSA, Nicor Gas, PGC, et al., PG&E, Piedmont, 
    ProEnergy, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, Southern, TransCapacity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission is adopting the requirement that all transactions 
    and information be conducted using the Internet, because, as the 
    majority of the comments recognize, moving to a single, standardized 
    mode of communication is necessary to achieve an efficient 
    communication system. GISB has considered the reliability and security 
    issues relating to the use of the Internet for conducting transactions 
    and concluded that these concerns can be met.64 Indeed, as 
    Wisconsin Distributors note, the Internet backbone itself is reliable; 
    most of the difficulties with Internet connections are the result of 
    problems with the Internet servers of the parties and not the Internet 
    itself, problems that can also affect pipeline EBBs.65 
    Pipelines, therefore, must make sure that they test their Internet 
    systems prior to implementation. Since problems with Internet 
    communications generally will result from problems with pipeline 
    servers or with the Internet Service Provider (ISP) used to connect the 
    pipeline's server to the Internet, GISB and the pipelines should 
    consider measures to ensure communication reliability, such as mirrored 
    (duplicate) servers and the use of a back-up ISP. Pipelines also may 
    keep their EBBs functional for one year after implementation of the 
    Internet system, solely as a back-up.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \64\ K N Interstate Group states that no pipelines have 
    experienced difficulties with the Internet and that stocks and bonds 
    are traded over the Internet, reflecting the financial industry's 
    confidence in the security of the Internet.
        \65\ The Internet is designed to maintain communication even if 
    portions of the network go down. What is now termed the Internet 
    initially was conceived during the cold war as a communication 
    method to maintain continuing transmission capability in the event 
    of nuclear war. The concept was to replace the point-to-point 
    networks, where each site on the network was dependent on the link 
    before it, with a web network, where information could find its own 
    path even if a section was destroyed. See e.g., Bruce Sterling, 
    Short History of the Internet, http://www.forthnet. gr/forthnet/
    isoc/short.history.of.internet (Feb. 27, 1997). The more likely 
    eventuality, therefore, is an individual problem such as a pipeline 
    or customer's Internet service provider going down, just as in the 
    current EBB system a pipeline or customer's EBB computer can 
    malfunction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Moving to the Internet is intended to eliminate the idiosyncracies 
    resulting from the EBB system. Thus, the goal of the regulation would 
    be defeated if, as Koch suggests, only some functions were moved to the 
    Internet, since shippers still would be forced to use the EBBs for 
    other transactions.
        (2) Implementation of the regulation. (a) EDI v. interactive web 
    sites and the future of EBBs. The principal division between the 
    comments is over how the proposal is to be implemented and what will 
    happen to EBBs. Several commenters envision a system where the current 
    interactive EBBs will become interactive web sites.66 This 
    would mean that shippers would be able to conduct transactions in much 
    the same way they do today, by having a person type information on the 
    computer screen. NGSA argues that the standards should include both EDI 
    and an interactive web site.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \66\ Comments by Duke Energy Interstate Pipelines (migrate EBBs 
    to the Internet), NGSA (should require interactive web sites), 
    Southern (not sacrifice the ease of use of EBBs).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        TransCapacity and Gaslantic contend that requiring pipelines to 
    provide interactive web sites fails to achieve the necessary 
    standardization. They contend that except for the few informational 
    components already required to be posted on web pages,67 all 
    transactions should be conducted through EDI dataset transactions. 
    TransCapacity asserts that an EDI solution would be far less expensive 
    for the pipelines to implement than an interactive web approach. It 
    maintains that GISB need only create a few more datasets to transfer 
    all EBB functions to EDI and that implementation of these datasets will 
    be relatively simple, since the infrastructure for transferring EDI 
    data already exists. Koch similarly urges that the requirement only 
    apply to EDI transactions. Requiring a dual EDI and interactive web-
    based system, it asserts, is just as inefficient as the current dual 
    EDI and EBB system and pipelines would have to make substantial 
    investments to create an interactive web-based system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \67\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(iv) (1997), Electronic Delivery 
    Mechanism Related Standards 4.3.6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        TransCapacity further asserts that if pipelines are able to recover 
    their interactive web site costs through their cost-of-service, the 
    less efficient interactive web-based system will receive an unfair 
    subsidy relative to shippers implementing EDI on their own or by using 
    third-parties. The shippers using the interactive web site will incur 
    no incremental charge,68 while those using EDI will incur 
    costs for implementing this solution. It argues that if pipelines want 
    to provide an interactive web based or EBB approach they should do so 
    only if they impose a separate charges for this service. Other 
    commenters similarly contend that once the Internet solution is 
    implemented, pipeline recovery of dial-up EBB costs through cost-of-
    service should be discontinued.69
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \68\ Shippers not paying demand rates, in effect, would receive 
    the interactive EBB solution for free.
        \69\ Comments by Altra, NGC, NGSA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        According to GISB's 1998 Annual Plan, it is convening an Internet 
    transition task force to consider how to effectuate the transition to 
    full Internet communications. However, according to the minutes of the 
    GISB Executive Committee Meeting of February 12, 1998, GISB also 
    appears divided over which model of Internet communication should be 
    adopted.70
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \70\ See GISB's March 23, 1998 filing (Volume I, Appendix 9).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        To guide the industry's deliberations, the Commission will explain 
    below the general outline of how the standardized communications policy 
    should be implemented.
        First, pipelines conducting business transactions electronically 
    must conduct all such transactions using EDI format. The industry, and 
    the Commission, chose EDI as the standardized method for conducting 
    transactions with all pipelines using a single uniform methodology. 
    Many of the efficiency benefits from establishing the infrastructure to 
    process EDI transactions would be lost unless shippers can use EDI for 
    conducting all business transactions with the pipelines. Thus, the 
    pipelines and GISB need to create EDI datasets for all transactions not 
    yet standardized.
        Second, pipelines may, but will not be required to, provide 
    interactive web sites. Pipelines will be permitted cost-of-service 
    recovery in subsequent section 4 rate cases for the costs of the 
    interactive web site only if the pipelines together with GISB create 
    standards governing the access to, presentation,
    
    [[Page 20085]]
    
    and format (``look and feel'') of the sites. This approach will enable 
    the pipelines to respond to shippers' needs while still providing a 
    reasonably standardized method of communication. As NGC notes, many 
    electric utilities collaborated on developing a common Internet site 
    that not only provided shippers with a standardized format, but 
    significantly reduced the utilities' development costs as well. The 
    pipelines and GISB should give serious consideration to pursuing a 
    similar course.
        Third, the 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. All transactions 
    available on the interactive web site also must be available through 
    standardized EDI communications.
        Fourth, by the June 1, 1999 conversion to Internet communications, 
    communications using EBBs should cease. Continued use of EBBs past June 
    1, 1999 would only delay the move to a standardized communication 
    system. Pipelines, however, may 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 must remove EBB costs 
    from cost-of-service in any general section 4 rate case effective after 
    June 1, 2000. Pipelines also may request recovery of any stranded costs 
    resulting from discontinuation of EBBs that are incurred during the 
    test period of a general section 4 rate case that removes EBB costs 
    from cost-of-service.71 New investments in EBB technology 
    will not be recoverable.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \71\ 18 CFR Part 154, subpart D.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        TransCapacity suggests that permitting pipelines cost-of-service 
    recovery for standardized interactive web sites provides a subsidy to 
    the users of the interactive web site. But the Commission does not find 
    an undue preference. The costs of implementing the EDI standards 
    currently are included in pipeline cost-of-service even though not all 
    shippers may use this approach. While, in theory, pipelines could 
    impose separate charges for EDI and interactive web sites, allocating 
    costs between the services could prove difficult, given the integrated 
    nature of communication systems. Thus, including all standardized 
    approaches in the pipelines' cost-of-service will permit shippers to 
    choose the communication approach that best fits their business needs.
        (b) Third-party networks. In a related issue, several commenters 
    oppose the proposal that pipelines provide connections to third-party 
    networks. Enron argues that pipelines should not have to support value-
    added-networks (VANs) that charge for connections. The K N Interstate 
    Group maintains that maintenance of third-party connections is 
    inconsistent with a commitment to standardization, would be expensive, 
    and is not needed for security concerns. NGPL asks for clarification of 
    the requirement, contending that issues need to be resolved such as 
    standards governing these networks, network obligations for interfacing 
    with pipelines, and network responsibility for failure to perform all 
    necessary tasks in a timely manner. TransCapacity and Altra support the 
    requirement, contending that third-party networks should be 
    accommodated as long as they are willing to pay all costs of the 
    interconnection. Altra contends that such connections can be made at 
    relatively low cost by means of a simple router where both the Internet 
    and third-party transactions go through the same system with the same 
    priority.
        The Commission will require pipelines to provide third-party 
    connections as long as the third-party pays a reasonable fee, to be 
    included in the pipeline's tariff, reflecting the costs to the pipeline 
    of providing the connection.72 Third-parties would have to 
    use the same datasets and internet protocols as the EDI services. The 
    pipelines also must provide the same information handling and response 
    priority for those using the standard Internet services and third-party 
    networks. GISB should consider whether any additional standards are 
    necessary to ensure that third-party and Internet connections receive 
    equal priority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \72\ The Commission similarly has required electric utilities to 
    provide connections to third-party networks using the same protocols 
    as the connections to the Internet. Open Access Same-Time 
    Information System, Order No. 889, 61 FR 21737 (May 10, 1996), FERC 
    Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [Jan. 1991-June 1996] para. 
    31,035, at 31,619 (Apr. 24, 1996).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Pipelines will not have to pay VAN charges, as raised by Enron; 
    those charges would have to be paid by the third-party. Moreover, there 
    should be no added costs or burdens on the pipelines since under the 
    regulation, the third-party networks would have to communicate using 
    the same internet tools, protocols, and directory services as would be 
    used for the pipelines' Internet service.
        (c) Transactions covered. Enron, while not disagreeing with the 
    regulation, maintains it is too broad. Enron argues that the use of 
    Internet communications should be limited to those functions now 
    conducted over EBBs, and not other electronic transactions, such as 
    funds transfers. All transactions provided on EBBs are covered by the 
    regulation. GISB should consider how to handle other electronic 
    transactions, such as funds transfers, in the most standardized fashion 
    possible.
        (3) Implementation date. The final rule requires pipelines to 
    implement the requirement to move all communications to the Internet by 
    June 1, 1999. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that while the June 1, 
    1999 deadline should give GISB sufficient time to develop any needed 
    standards, the pipelines should be prepared to move to the Internet by 
    the June 1, 1999 deadline regardless of whether standards are 
    developed.
        Several commenters argue that implementation should not precede the 
    development of standards even if implementation is 
    delayed.73 They contend that pipeline implementation prior 
    to standardization would be wasteful, since pipelines would have to 
    revise their systems after the standards are developed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \73\ Comments by ANR/CIG, Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, Enron, 
    Koch, NGPL, NGSA, Southern.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The pipelines 74 and Latitude contend that June 1, 1999 
    is too aggressive a timetable for implementation. In particular, the 
    pipelines object to the deadline because such an effort would drain 
    resources from pipeline efforts to ensure that their computer systems 
    are not subject to the Year 2000 problem (the use of only two digits, 
    e.g. 98, to represent the year, causing problems if 00 is interpreted 
    as 1900 rather than 2000). Duke Energy Interstate Pipelines contend 
    that the June 1, 1999 deadline should require pipelines to do nothing 
    more than move their EBBs to the Internet. Any further standardization, 
    it recommends, should take place after 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \74\ Comments by CNG, Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, Duke Energy 
    Interstate Pipelines, INGAA, Latitude, NGPL, Southern, WGP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        NGC and TransCapacity argue that the June 1, 1999 deadline is 
    achievable and should not be changed. TransCapacity maintains the 
    pipelines are using the Year 2000 issue as a pretext for delay and 
    there is no reason why pipelines could not implement additional EDI 
    standards by June 1, 1999. Other commenters argue the Commission should 
    require the pipelines to begin testing their Internet solutions at 
    least three months before the deadline and that GISB should be given an 
    interim
    
    [[Page 20086]]
    
    deadline of June 1, 1998 to develop standards.75
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \75\ Comments by NGC, NGSA, ProEnergy, SoCal Gas/SDG&E.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission agrees that the development of standards for moving 
    to the Internet is necessary and is encouraged by GISB's development of 
    task forces to begin this process. The June 1, 1999 implementation 
    date, however, should provide the industry with sufficient time to 
    develop appropriate standards prior to implementation and also permit 
    inauguration of the new system during the summer months, when pipelines 
    are not running at peak. With the wide-spread availability of 
    commercial Internet solutions, it does not appear developing a 
    standardized Internet communication system should represent a major 
    technological challenge. Maintaining the June 1, 1999 deadline will 
    give all parties an incentive to reach agreement on standards and 
    proceed with implementation expeditiously.
        While the general issue of computer readiness for the Year 2000 has 
    received much publicity, the pipelines have not shown that this problem 
    is of such magnitude for them that implementation of the regulation 
    should be delayed across the board. The pipelines refer generally to 
    the problem, but do not provide any details about the scope of their 
    difficulties, such as by showing how many pipelines even have a 
    problem, how many systems are affected, or the extent of the resources 
    needed to address the problem. Moreover, the regulation adopted here 
    requires only that pipelines conduct transactions using EDI, and the 
    pipelines do not contend that implementing that requirement by June 1, 
    1999 creates a technological problem.
        As discussed earlier, pipelines may not continue to use their EBBs 
    past the June 1, 1999 implementation deadline.76 For those 
    pipelines that choose to replace their EBBs with interactive web sites, 
    the ready availability of commercial Internet solutions suggests the 
    development of an interactive web site is not such a daunting 
    technological feat that it would unduly interfere with correcting a 
    particular pipeline's problem in accommodating the transition to the 
    Year 2000. In addition, as discussed earlier, pipelines can save 
    significant monetary and personnel resources as well as provide a more 
    standardized product if, instead of each pipeline developing a 
    proprietary solution, they collaborated on development of a 
    standardized Internet communication system, as was done in the electric 
    industry.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \76\ EBBs may be maintained only as back-up systems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        c. Regulations for posting information on web sites. In Order No. 
    587-C, the Commission adopted GISB standard 4.3.6 requiring pipelines 
    to post information relating to pipeline tariffs, affiliate 
    transactions, operationally available capacity, system notices, and an 
    Index of Customers for viewing in HTML format on pipeline Internet web 
    sites. The Commission is incorporating by reference standards 4.3.5 and 
    4.3.16 of GISB's Version 1.2, which will require that pipelines provide 
    for downloads of the posted documents either in hyper-text mark-up 
    language (HTML) or rich-text-format (RTF). Additionally, in 
    Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(ii), the Commission is adopting regulations requiring 
    pipelines to adhere to the following standards with respect to the 
    posted information: the 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 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.
        ECT contends more standards are necessary, for example, to 
    establish common methods of doing text searches. It also contends that 
    HTML should not be used for downloads as provided in GISB standard 
    4.3.16 because the printed version of HTML documents may lose 
    formatting features and because of the difficulty in printing entire 
    HTML documents if the documents are broken into separate linked 
    chapters or pages. It recommends that all downloads be provided solely 
    in RTF format. Altra contends that there should be a common URL or 
    Internet name for all standardized documents. Latitude contends the 
    Commission needs to protect against web sites that are specifically 
    tailored to a particular proprietary Internet browser. SGPC argues 
    pipelines should be able to rely upon the most recent software.
        The Commission will adopt the proposed regulations as providing a 
    basic foundation for posting upon which GISB can improve. GISB has 
    established its own ``Look and Feel'' task force to develop a 
    consistent and uniform presentation for information posted on pipeline 
    web sites.
        With respect to Latitude's concern, Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(ii)(A) 
    provides that web sites must be viewable using commercially available 
    browsers, which protects against a pipeline making its site accessible 
    to only one browser. In response to SGPC's comment about current 
    software versions, standards 4.3.6 and 4.3.16 require that all 
    information be posted in HTML and downloadable in HTML or RTF format. 
    Therefore, pipelines should not be requiring the use of other software 
    to view information on or download information from web sites. While 
    pipelines should accommodate reasonably current versions of web 
    browsers, they should not be required to accommodate browsers that have 
    been out-of-date for several years. GISB should consider the 
    development of standards reflecting the level of HTML coding that 
    should be supported. At this point, the Commission sees no reason to 
    depart from the industry consensus permitting pipelines to download 
    documents in HTML, as ECT suggests. That, along with other 
    standardization issues, such as the use of a common URL designation for 
    documents, should be examined by GISB as it continues its 
    deliberations.
        d. Regulations requiring that pipelines provide a cross-reference 
    table for numeric designations. In many places in the standardized 
    datasets, GISB has used a common code to represent the shipper's name. 
    GISB has chosen to use the numeric designation provided by Dun & 
    Bradstreet (DUNS) as the means of identifying shippers. But there is no 
    requirement in the standards to provide a table cross-referencing the 
    numeric designation with the shipper's name. In Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(iii), 
    the Commission, therefore, is requiring pipelines to provide a table 
    cross-referencing any numeric designation with the applicable name or 
    other information being represented.
        No party objects to this regulation. NGC asks the Commission to 
    clarify that the numeric representation is for the EDI datasets, used 
    for computer-to-computer interaction only. It maintains that numeric 
    designations are not useful for information provided on web sites for 
    human to computer interaction. NGSA maintains that a standardized 
    cross-reference table needs to be developed so that shippers can use 
    the format across all pipelines.
        The regulation requiring that pipelines provide a cross-reference 
    table when using numeric designations is needed to ensure that the 
    Commission and shippers can identify parties to a transaction. For 
    instance, without a cross-reference table, neither the Commission nor 
    other shippers can identify what shipper is receiving capacity on a 
    capacity release
    
    [[Page 20087]]
    
    transaction, information which Commission regulations require to be 
    publicly available. When the Commission previously required pipelines 
    to use a common code to identify pipeline transaction points, it 
    similarly required the pipelines to provide a cross-reference table at 
    a cost not to exceed the expenses of shipping and 
    handling.77
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \77\ 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), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles 
    para. 30,994, at 31,044-45 (May 2, 1994).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The GISB standards require the use of numeric representations only 
    for EDI, computer-to-computer communication. The Commission agrees with 
    NGC that numeric designations should not be used for information posted 
    on web sites for computer-to-human interaction. The Commission also 
    agrees with NGSA that GISB either should develop a single, central 
    cross-reference table or else establish standards governing the cross-
    reference tables provided by the pipelines.
        Altra contends that, rather than using DUNS numbers, GISB should 
    develop its own cross-reference table. Altra maintains that Dun & 
    Bradstreet will not agree to permit pipelines to provide a cross-
    reference table and that, even if it did, the DUNS number is not a 
    precise enough designation, because the number is not distinctly 
    assignable to a particular party.
        The Commission will continue to accept the industry consensus to 
    use DUNS numbers. However, if DUNS will not permit the development of a 
    cross-reference table, the industry either needs to develop its own 
    cross-reference table or cease using numeric designations and return to 
    using names.
        e. Requirement that information be the same regardless of the 
    format in which it is provided. Under the Commission regulations 
    adopted here, pipeline customers can (or will be able to) obtain 
    information and transact business using a number of formats, EBBs 
    (until implementation of the Internet communication methods), EDI 
    datasets, or interactive web sites. In Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(iv), the 
    Commission is adopting a regulation requiring that the informational 
    content must be the same regardless of the format in which it is 
    provided.
        Altra strongly supports this regulation to ensure that all 
    functions achievable on one format can be achieved through the other 
    formats, and no commenter has opposed it. Given the different methods 
    that pipelines can use to provide information, it is crucial that the 
    content be the same regardless of the format. For instance, information 
    about operationally available capacity is available currently on EBBs, 
    pipeline web sites, and EDI downloads. The information obtained using 
    each of these methods needs to be the same.
        f. Regulation regarding the retention period for electronic 
    information. In the NOPR, the Commission had proposed to expand the 
    current three-year requirement for retention of electronic EBB data to 
    a five year period for retention of all electronically conducted 
    transactions. The pipelines oppose the extension as being unwarranted, 
    unjustified, and burdensome.78 ANR/CIG point out that they 
    conduct more than 6,000 nominations and confirmations each day and 
    that, on an industry-wide basis, this would amount to tens of thousands 
    of nominations and confirmations, figures which do not include the 
    requirement to maintain records of other transactions. ANR/CIG suggest 
    adoption of the GISB two-year requirement for maintenance of electronic 
    data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \78\ Comments by ANR/CIG, Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, Enron (5 
    years unwarranted), INGAA, K N Interstate Group, Koch, NGPL (no 
    justification), NGT/MRT.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        MGE, NGSA, and ProEnergy support the five year requirement. 
    TransCapacity contends there is no need to retain every electronic 
    transaction record for five years. It suggests the pipelines be 
    required to maintain only summary electronic records, such as the end 
    of day scheduled quantities dataset which summarizes the nomination 
    activity for the day.
        After reviewing its need for information, the Commission has 
    determined not to change its current three year retention period for 
    electronic information. The current requirement to retain electronic 
    information in section 284.10(a) applies only to information maintained 
    on EBBs. This requirement, therefore, needs to be updated to encompass 
    all information and transactions conducted electronically regardless of 
    form, such as EDI or other Internet-based communication. In section 
    284.10(c)(3)(v), the Commission is adopting a regulation requiring that 
    pipelines retain for a period of three years records of all information 
    displayed and transactions conducted electronically and be able to 
    recover and regenerate all such electronic information and 
    documents.79
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \79\ GISB standard 4.3.4 provides for two year retention of 
    transactional data, but states that this requirement does not 
    otherwise modify statutory, regulatory, or contractual record 
    retention requirements. Because the Commission is continuing its 
    current three year requirement for retention of electronic 
    information, it will not adopt GISB standard 4.3.4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Koch maintains that the data archived under this section should not 
    be maintained on-line, but should be provided on disk or through other 
    electronic means. Section 284.10(c)(3)(v) requires pipelines to make 
    the information available in electronic form for a reasonable fee. 
    Pipelines, therefore, need not maintain the information on line, but 
    may make archived information available on disk or CD ROM.
        g. Regulation requiring Internet notice for operational flow orders 
    and other critical notices. In Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(vi), the Commission is 
    adopting a regulation requiring pipelines to provide notice of 
    operational flow orders and other critical notices by posting the 
    notice on their web sites and by notifying the affected customers 
    directly either by Internet E-mail or notification to the customer's 
    URL or Internet address. The Commission will address below the comments 
    on the regulation as well as issues concerning the method of 
    implementing the requirement.
        (1) The use of Internet notification. Three commenters oppose the 
    requirement to use Internet notification, contending that notice should 
    be made by telephone or facsimile, at the customer's 
    choice.80 Their concern is that customers may not be 
    available to check the Internet or read the notice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \80\ Comments by Florida Cities (costs too much for shippers to 
    monitor Internet connections on a 24 hour basis), MGE (until 
    Internet is tested, facsimile and telephone should be used), NGSA 
    (mode of notification at shipper's choice).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission concludes that, on balance, posting on the web site 
    together with Internet E-mail or direct notice to an Internet address 
    effects a reasonable balance between the shippers' need for notice and 
    the pipelines' need to create an efficient automated system for 
    communicating with all of their shippers. By permitting automated 
    notice to all shippers simultaneously, Internet notification speeds up 
    the notification process and removes any potential for disparate 
    treatment between shippers as to the time at which they receive 
    notice.81 The commenters preferred solution, notification by 
    telephone or fax, is not necessarily any more reliable than Internet 
    notification since telephones or fax machines also may not be monitored 
    and there would be no record that a notice was sent by the pipeline.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \81\ For example, one pipeline representative at the technical 
    conference stated that even calling in all available personnel, 
    about 24 people, it took them six hours to contact all affected 
    parties using telephonic communication. Transcript of December 13, 
    1996 technical conference at 37.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Even for after hours notice, Internet postings provide shippers 
    with a
    
    [[Page 20088]]
    
    significant amount of flexibility. Employees can check for critical 
    notices on the Internet at home. In addition, the requirement for 
    direct notice to E-mail and Internet addresses will enable those 
    shippers who want telephonic or pager notification to receive such 
    notice by purchasing software that automatically triggers telephones or 
    pagers when an Internet message is received.
        (2) Implementation after development of standards. ECT, NGC, and 
    NGSA urge that prior to implementation of the Internet notice 
    requirement, standardization of definitions and format is needed to 
    differentiate types of notices so the notification software can 
    properly determine whether to trigger the phone or pager.
        The Commission agrees that standards are needed for this 
    notification process to operate efficiently. In particular, a dataset 
    will be needed for those customers relying upon EDI communication with 
    the pipelines. Therefore, the Commission will defer implementation of 
    this requirement until the necessary standards are developed by GISB. 
    According to GISB's 1998 Annual Plan, no schedule has been set for 
    development of standards for OFO notification. However, during the 
    December 12-13, 1996 technical conference, members of the GISB Future 
    Technology Task Force stated that, if needed, such standards could be 
    developed and others pointed out that a similar dataset already exists 
    for general, as opposed to customer specific, notices.82 
    Modification of this dataset should not prove particularly difficult 
    and GISB should be able to add this to its agenda for 1998. The 
    Commission will expect GISB and others in the industry to propose such 
    standards by December 31, 1998. Until that time, pipelines should 
    continue to provide notice according to the provisions of their 
    tariffs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \82\ Transcript of December 13, technical conference, at 32-31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (3) Penalties and other implementation details. NGC, NGSA, and 
    Nicor Gas argue that penalties should not be imposed for E-mail 
    failures or if actual notice is not received. SoCal Gas/SDG&E contend 
    that the pipelines should seek to notify the shipper using an 
    alternative method if the pipeline is notified that the E-Mail was not 
    delivered. On the other hand, INGAA, K N Interstate Group, and NGPL 
    contend that E-mail should be the shippers' responsibility and not the 
    pipelines.
        The Commission finds no reason for pipelines to waive penalties 
    except when the pipelines' notification system fails. Shippers are 
    responsible for maintaining a current E-Mail or Internet address, and 
    they should bear responsibility for failures by their chosen Internet 
    provider. Pipelines, however, have little reason to leave shippers 
    without notice in critical operational situations, since that could 
    lead to adverse consequences for the system. Thus, the Commission fully 
    expects the pipelines to try alternative methods in the event they have 
    specific notice that electronic notice has not been received.
        INGAA maintains the pipelines should be responsible for notifying 
    only one E-Mail address. The Commission will not impose such an 
    absolute requirement. Given the ease of automatic notification, 
    shippers should be able to choose a reasonable number of addresses for 
    notification, for example, if they want a different notification 
    address for after-business-hours notification.
        Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf argue that pipelines should be able to 
    conform their current procedures to the regulation without concern 
    about shippers' arguments that a change constitutes a degradation of 
    service. Florida Cities, however, maintains that the new regulation 
    should not overturn a settlement on this issue on Florida Gas.
        As a general matter, pipelines should be able to revise their 
    notification procedures to conform to the regulation. However, while 
    pipelines must comply with the regulation, they may also agree with 
    their shippers to provide additional methods of notification. If a 
    pipeline chooses to make a filing under section 4 of Natural Gas Act to 
    eliminate or revise their current procedures, the Commission will be 
    able to consider specific circumstances, such as settlements or rate 
    issues, bearing upon the proposed change.83
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \83\ A filing to change current procedures cannot be made as 
    part of a filing to comply with the requirements of this rule. Any 
    filing to change current procedures must be made as a separate 
    section 4 filing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    C. Issues on Which the Commission Determined Not to Adopt Requested 
    Regulations
    
        In the NOPR, the Commission did not propose regulations as 
    requested by some industry members in other areas in which GISB could 
    not reach consensus--title transfer tracking, cross-contract ranking, 
    multi-tiered allocations, fuel reimbursement, and penalty 
    determinations. The Commission, however, did provide the industry with 
    guidance as to its general policies in these areas to help facilitate 
    GISB's consideration of standards in these areas.
    1. Title Transfer Tracking
        Title transfer tracking refers to the accounting for transfers of 
    title to gas at a nomination point when no transportation is involved. 
    Under Commission policy, shippers must have title to gas in order to 
    transport the gas on a pipeline. Pipelines, therefore, have always had 
    to perform some title transfer tracking to ensure that shippers have 
    title to gas.84
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \84\ For example, if shipper A on an upstream pipeline 
    transports gas to an interconnect with a downstream pipeline and 
    transfers the gas to shipper B on the downstream pipeline, the 
    pipelines would have to match those transactions as part of the 
    process of confirming the nominations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        However, with unbundling and the development of a more fluid gas 
    market, gas purchase and sale transactions at nomination points are 
    increasing dramatically. Thus, at an interconnect point, there may be 
    multiple transfers of title before the gas is nominated on the 
    downstream pipeline. In order for pipelines to confirm the gas 
    nominated on the upstream and downstream pipelines, they need to know 
    which upstream shipper(s) are delivering the gas to the shipper on the 
    downstream pipeline.
        GISB had begun the process of trying to create standards for title 
    transfer tracking, but the industry segments differed over whether the 
    pipelines should be required to establish a computerized title transfer 
    tracking service. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that its policy 
    was not to require pipelines to establish a service to account for the 
    purchase and sale of gas between shippers independent of 
    transportation. The Commission found it should be the shipper's 
    responsibility to furnish sufficient information to the pipeline to 
    establish its title to the gas and its right to nominate on the 
    pipeline. The Commission noted that third-parties are now providing 
    title transfer tracking services and concluded that pipelines must be 
    willing to accept title transfer information from these third parties. 
    The Commission requested GISB to submit standards, by March 31, 1998, 
    governing pipeline obligations to accept confirmations by third-party 
    title transfer trackers.
        The Commission will address below comments on the Commission's 
    determination not to propose a regulation requiring pipelines to 
    provide title transfer tracking service and on several issues relating 
    to the pipelines' processing of information
    
    [[Page 20089]]
    
    from third-party title transfer tracking service providers.
        a. Pipeline obligations to provide title transfer tracking 
    services. The pipelines and LDCs generally agree with the Commission's 
    decision not to require pipelines to provide a title transfer tracking 
    service.85 NGC, NGSA, and ProEnergy oppose the decision. 
    They contend that due to the nature of title transfer tracking service, 
    it can be performed by only one party and that the pipelines are the 
    best positioned to perform the service. They contend that third-parties 
    have not emerged to provide this service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \85\ Comments by El Paso, Enron, INGAA, Koch, NGPL, Nicor Gas, 
    Peoples/North Shore, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, TransCapacity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        NGC contends that having multiple parties provide title transfer 
    tracking is inefficient, because the pipeline would still have to track 
    title transfers running between the trackers. It suggests that the 
    Commission's approach may open the door to a plethora of title transfer 
    trackers each of which the pipeline would have to support. NGSA, while 
    recognizing that title transfer tracking is not an integral requirement 
    of natural gas transportation, contends the pipelines are the only 
    parties capable of providing the service. It states GISB is considering 
    an option under which pipelines would provide title transfer tracking 
    services and asks the Commission to defer a final ruling on this issue 
    until GISB has finished its considerations.
        Altra agrees that only one party can efficiently perform the 
    service, but it argues that, rather than having the pipelines perform 
    the service, each pipeline should be required to choose the third-party 
    provider for its system. TransCapacity, on the other hand, contends 
    that monopoly provision of title transfer tracking service is not 
    necessary. TransCapacity argues that pipelines can implement several 
    provisions in their tariffs to ensure that they will deal with only 
    bona fide title transfer tracking services.
        GISB should not necessarily short-circuit on-going discussions over 
    options for conducting title transfer tracking. If GISB reaches 
    consensus that pipelines should be required to provide this service, 
    the Commission will give that agreement great weight in later 
    considerations of the issue.
        Absent a consensus position from GISB, however, the Commission 
    finds insufficient justification for proposing a regulation requiring 
    pipelines to perform title transfer tracking services. It should be the 
    shipper's responsibility to furnish the transporter with sufficient 
    information to establish its title to gas and its right to nominate 
    that gas on the pipeline. NGSA itself concedes that title transfer 
    tracking is not an integral part of providing transportation of natural 
    gas. While pipelines may wish to offer title transfer tracking as an 
    added service option to their shippers, the Commission is not convinced 
    at this juncture that the pipelines are the only possible or the best 
    provider of the service and, therefore, should be required to provide 
    it.
        Rather than mandating that pipelines be the sole provider of title 
    transfer tracking service, the Commission is opening the market to the 
    force of competition from third-party service providers. The 
    competition between providers, including those pipelines that wish to 
    compete, should provide the proper incentive for firms to provide the 
    level of title transfer tracking services that customers desire and for 
    which they are willing to pay.86
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \86\ When pipelines are the sole provider of title transfer 
    tracking, disputes have arisen as to the level of the service which 
    should be provided. See El Paso Natural Gas Company, 81 FERC para. 
    61,174 (1997) (complaints about the extent of title transfer 
    activity the pipeline should be required to process).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        It is incorrect to assume, as do the commenters, that the absence 
    of third-party title transfer tracking services today means such 
    services will not develop in the future. Hub and storage operators 
    currently provide title transfer tracking services, and the pipelines 
    accept their confirmations.87 While independent third party 
    title transfer trackers do not exist currently, that is not surprising 
    since, as TransCapacity notes, until the NOPR, pipelines did not 
    recognize an obligation to support confirmations from independent 
    third-party title transfer tracking services. The provision of title 
    transfer tracking services by storage and hub operators suggests that a 
    market for this service exists and that parties other than pipelines 
    can provide the service. Once GISB develops the standards and pipelines 
    are required to support third-party title transfer trackers, firms will 
    have incentives to enter this market, particularly if the demand for 
    the service is as great as the commenters contend.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \87\See Moss Bluff Hub Partners, L.P., 80 FERC para. 61,181, at 
    61,475 (1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        It also is not clear that pipelines must provide this service 
    because a monopoly provider of title transfer tracking services is 
    needed at each point or on each pipeline. The competitive market may 
    develop naturally so that only one or a few title transfer tracking 
    service exists at each point. The pipelines can propose tariff 
    provisions, if it becomes necessary, to protect against NGC's concern 
    that every shipper will designate itself as a title transfer tracking 
    service provider.88 Moreover, even if multiple title 
    transfer trackers do prove to be inefficient, there are competitive 
    solutions which would not require the Commission to mandate that 
    pipelines provide the service. Shippers, either alone or together with 
    pipelines, could solicit competitive bids for title transfer tracking 
    services on each pipeline and choose the firm offering the best 
    bid.89
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \88\ For instance, TransCapacity notes pipelines could require 
    that title transfer tracking services provide non-discriminatory 
    service to anyone requesting the service and that they adhere to the 
    GISB standards.
        \89\ Pipelines could even propose tariff provisions setting out 
    the requirements for submitting bids to provide the service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the NOPR, the Commission requested that GISB and others in the 
    industry submit, by March 31, 1998, business practices and electronic 
    communication standards for dealing with title transfer tracking. A 
    consensus of the industry supports the GISB 1998 Annual Plan which 
    provides for the development of such standards by the fourth quarter of 
    1998, and the Commission will therefore expect the submission of 
    standards by December 31, 1998.
        b. Timing of pipeline processing of title transfer tracking 
    information. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that pipelines should 
    accept title transfer tracking information as part of its process for 
    confirming nominations. The pipelines point out that the GISB task 
    force has not completed work on title transfer tracking standards, and 
    the pipelines are not yet convinced title transfer tracking can be 
    accomplished through the confirmation process.90 Their 
    principal concern is that, if title transfer tracking can be performed 
    by any firm, multiple title transfer tracking services may develop and 
    that processing all those transactions during the confirmation process 
    would be burdensome. Most pipelines suggest title transfer tracking 
    should be part of the nomination process.91
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \90\ Comments by Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, Enron, INGAA, NGPL, 
    Williston Basin.
        \91\ Comments by Enron, NGPL.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        On the other hand, Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf and TransCapacity 
    maintain that title transfer tracking should be a part of the 
    confirmation, rather than the nomination process. They also agree that 
    title transfer tracking should take place earlier in the confirmation 
    cycle than the 3:30 p.m. confirmation from point operators.
        While GISB should seek to work out the details for conducting title 
    transfer
    
    [[Page 20090]]
    
    tracking, the Commission does not want the timing of title transfer 
    tracking processing to inhibit standards development. To forestall 
    possible later disputes over this issue, the Commission generally 
    agrees with Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf and TransCapacity that title 
    transfer tracking properly should be part of the confirmation process. 
    First, the purpose of title transfer tracking is to confirm that gas 
    nominated by a shipper will be at the nominated point. Physical point 
    operators provide title transfer tracking services and their 
    information generally is processed during the confirmation process. To 
    ensure non-discriminatory treatment, the same rules should apply to 
    independent third-party operators. Second, placing title transfer 
    tracking in the nomination cycle could reduce market liquidity and 
    comparability between physical and title transfer transactions. For 
    instance, a shipper may arrange for physical flows up until the 11:30 
    a.m. nomination deadline. But those who wish to arrange for paper 
    transactions would have to make earlier arrangements in order to permit 
    the title transfer tracker sufficient time to process the paper 
    transactions in time to meet the 11:30 a.m. deadline. Third, there is 
    no reason now to suspect that multiple independent title transfer 
    tracking services will arise or that the pipelines will be unable to 
    develop reasonable measures to ensure that title transfer tracking does 
    not unduly burden the confirmation process.
        The compromise solution proposed by Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf and 
    TransCapacity would seem to satisfy the need to include title transfer 
    tracking as part of the confirmation process while at the same time 
    providing pipelines with time to process the title transfer tracking 
    information and coordinate that information with the physical point 
    operators. GISB should further explore this potential solution in its 
    deliberations.
        c. Other issues. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that pipelines 
    could, if they chose, provide a title transfer tracking service and 
    charge a fee for the service. TransCapacity requests clarification that 
    such fees cannot be charged for processing title transfer tracking 
    information from third-party service providers. The Commission agrees 
    with TransCapacity. Pipelines may not charge a fee for processing 
    nomination or confirmation information from point operators, other 
    pipelines, or third-party title transfer tracking service providers. 
    Pipelines may charge a separate fee only for tracking title transfers 
    between parties that are independent of transportation.
        NGC maintains that pipelines providing a title transfer tracking 
    service should not be able to charge a separate fee, but should include 
    the costs in their reservation charges. The Commission's policy has 
    been to permit pipelines to charge a separate fee for title transfer 
    tracking.92 Charging a separate fee ensures that those using 
    the service are not subsidized by the firm shippers paying reservation 
    charges and can help to ensure that shippers will use the service only 
    to the point at which the shippers' value from the service equals or 
    exceeds the price charged.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \92\ Trunkline Gas Company, 75 FERC para. 61,003 (1996) 
    (approving a separate flat charge for title tracking service). But 
    see Williams Natural Gas Company, 79 FERC para. 61,096 (1997) 
    (permitting a separate fee, but rejecting a volumetric fee unrelated 
    to costs of providing the service).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        ECT contends that, if pipelines do provide a title transfer 
    tracking service, they should be able to require that all shippers 
    submit their title transfer tracking information to the pipeline. 
    Shippers should not have to use a pipeline's title transfer tracking 
    service. If title transfer tracking is to develop as a competitive 
    service, shippers should be able to choose whether to use the 
    pipelines' title transfer tracking service or one provided by a third-
    party. Pipelines providing their own title transfer tracking service 
    should enjoy no special advantages over third-party providers and must 
    process all title transfer tracking information in a comparable manner.
        Koch maintains that pipelines should not bear liability for title 
    transfer tracking information provided by third-parties. The Commission 
    finds no reason to distinguish between pipeline responsibilities to 
    process title transfer tracking information and their responsibilities 
    and liabilities with respect to processing a confirmation from a point 
    operator or other connecting party.
        K N Interstate Group maintains that pipelines should be able to 
    require agency agreements with title transfer tracking service 
    providers and shippers. As stated above, pipelines should be able to 
    impose reasonable tariff requirements for dealing with third-party 
    title transfer tracking services. GISB also can consider standards 
    delineating the type of agency or other business agreements that are 
    needed to facilitate the provision of title transfer tracking service.
        2. Cross-contract ranking. Gas package ranking refers to the 
    designation by a shipper of the amount of gas that will be allocated to 
    particular markets or customers in the event the shipper's full 
    nomination is not accepted. The standards adopted by the Commission 
    already require pipelines to honor shipper ``rankings when making 
    reductions during the scheduling process when this does not conflict 
    with tariff-based rules.'' 93 For example, if a shipper 
    nominates 1,000 MMBtus under one contract for several markets, it can 
    specify how to divide gas between markets if the full 1,000 MMBtus is 
    not confirmed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \93\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.3.23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Shippers had complained that, under this standard, pipelines were 
    not permitting them to rank gas supplies across contracts. In the NOPR, 
    the Commission concluded that pipelines should permit cross-contract 
    ranking so long as it does not affect the operational integrity of the 
    pipeline's system. The Commission asked GISB and the industry to submit 
    any additional standards necessary to facilitate cross-contract ranking 
    by March 31, 1998.
        Shippers and NGPL support cross-contract ranking.94 
    TransCapacity, while supporting the requirement, suggests that 
    implementation may require some pipelines that handle nominations on a 
    contract basis to change systems so that they become point based. It 
    suggests that either the Commission provide further guidance on this 
    point or allow GISB to try to develop a way for pipelines to implement 
    the requirement without changing their systems. Most pipelines, with 
    the exception of NGPL, oppose cross-contract ranking, contending that 
    it adds too much complexity to the nominations process.95
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \94\ Comments by Altra, MGE, NGC, NGSA, Nicor Gas, PG&E, 
    Piedmont, ProEnergy, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, TransCapacity.
        \95\ Comments by K N Interstate Group (adds too much complexity 
    on web based systems), NGT/MRT (make pipeline allocations 
    unmanageable), SGPC (affects transportation priority rules and adds 
    complexity), Viking (requires computer system upgrades and dataset 
    revisions), Williston Basin (cause too many problems), WGP (should 
    only be permitted between contracts or family of contracts of like 
    priority and rate).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission's policy is to provide shippers with the tools to 
    enable them most effectively to manage their capacity. Shippers today 
    may be shipping under a variety of contracts, including their own firm 
    and interruptible contracts as well as capacity release contracts which 
    have their own specific terms and conditions. Some pipelines permit 
    cross-contract ranking or have structured their pooling to permit such 
    ranking. The ability to allocate gas among these contracts gives 
    shippers additional flexibility. As with title transfer tracking, a 
    consensus of the industry supports the GISB 1998
    
    [[Page 20091]]
    
    Annual Plan in which cross-contract ranking standards will be developed 
    by the fourth quarter of 1998, and the Commission, therefore, will 
    expect the submission of such standards by GISB and others by December 
    31, 1998.
        Several shippers and pipelines raise concerns about one aspect of 
    the NOPR dealing with whether shipper rankings across contracts should 
    apply when transportation constraints require pipelines to restrict 
    transportation based on tariff-based service priorities.96 
    For example, if a shipper has nominated 100 units of gas under an 
    interruptible contract and a 100 units under a firm contract, and the 
    pipeline can schedule only the 100 units of firm transportation, which 
    has a higher transportation priority, should the shipper be able to 
    allocate the 100 units to the interruptible contract.97
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \96\ Comments by ECT, El Paso, Enron, NGPL, NGC, TransCapacity.
        \97\ Even if the shipper in the example allocated the 100 units 
    to the interruptible contract, it still could not receive more than 
    the 100 units represented by its firm capacity contract. If the 
    shipper had nominated no firm service, it would be unable to 
    allocate any gas to the interruptible contract.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Those opposing cross-contract ranking in this situation contend 
    that permitting ranking in this case goes beyond what shippers were 
    seeking in GISB and would improperly override scheduling priorities in 
    pipeline tariffs. While the commenters recognize that permitting 
    ranking would not completely obviate contractual priorities, they 
    maintain it fudges the distinctions and priorities between contract 
    types. NGC, one of the original and strongest proponents of cross-
    contract ranking, argues that ranking should not override 
    transportation priorities. It argues that permitting such ranking could 
    lead to gaming in which a shipper gains priority to a constrained point 
    under a firm contract and then changes to an interruptible contract, 
    thereby freeing up its firm capacity to gain access to another point, 
    perhaps using an intra-day nomination. El Paso contends that permitting 
    ranking to take precedence over scheduling allocations would cause 
    confusion over which service should be billed as well as create 
    confusion and problems during the confirmation process. On the other 
    side, Altra, although its comment is not altogether clear, appears to 
    contend that even when a cut occurs on the market side of the equation, 
    shippers should be able to rank all contracts flowing into the market 
    regardless of the contractual priority of the contract.
        GISB should strive to develop mechanisms that provide shippers with 
    the maximum flexibility to rank contracts for both supply and market 
    cuts. GISB, however, should strive to develop a method for handling 
    ranking that will not compromise the transportation priorities 
    associated with firm and interruptible contracts.
    3. Multi-Tiered Allocations
        A pre-determined allocation is a set of instructions by owners of 
    gas as to how gas should be allocated amongst them when the actual 
    volumes do not match the scheduled volumes. The standards currently 
    require pipelines to accept one tier of allocations from the upstream 
    or downstream custody transfer party.98 Some shippers 
    requested the Commission to issue a regulation requiring pipelines to 
    support multi-tiered allocations from all owners of gas, including the 
    wellhead operator and each producer owner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \98\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(ii) (1997), Flowing Gas Related 
    Standards 2.3.19.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the NOPR, the Commission found, as it did for title transfer 
    tracking, that there was no basis for requiring pipelines to maintain 
    the accounting for allocations occurring at the wellhead or at 
    interconnections not affecting the pipeline. Since GISB had recognized 
    that tracking multi-tiered allocations was another aspect of title 
    transfer tracking, the Commission suggested that GISB work on standards 
    to permit third-parties to track multi-tiered allocations.
        Pipelines generally support the Commission's 
    determination.99 Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf agree that 
    pipelines should not be required to provide multi-tiered allocations, 
    but they point out the current standards are not usable for pipelines 
    or others who may wish to track multi-tiered allocations. They urge the 
    Commission to ensure that GISB follow through and develop datasets 
    appropriate for tracking multi-tiered allocations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \99\ Comments by Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, K N Interstate 
    Group, NGPl, Williston Basin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        NGC, NGSA, and ProEnergy contend multi-tiered allocations are 
    needed for producers to accurately account for their transactions. 
    Pipelines should be required to perform the service, they assert, 
    because pipelines have traditionally been the clearinghouse for all 
    information related to gas transactions and are in a unique position to 
    track multi-tiered allocations. TransCapacity argues that GISB 
    currently is working on multi-tiered allocations and may have devised a 
    solution in which all allocations can be made through a single or a 
    series of levels.
        The current regulations give those parties connecting with a 
    pipeline the right to determine how gas is to be allocated at the 
    interconnection with the pipeline system. The Commission fails to see 
    why this right needs to be extended so that pipelines become 
    responsible for maintaining the accounting records for allocations 
    occurring at the wellhead or at interconnections not affecting the 
    pipeline. The tracking of multi-tiered allocations should be no 
    different than the tracking of title transfers, and third-parties 
    tracking title transfers should also be able to account for allocations 
    back to the wellhead. GISB's Annual Plan recognizes the interrelation 
    between standards for title transfer tracking and multi-tiered 
    allocations and targets the development of standards for both by the 
    fourth quarter of 1998.
        NGPL requests clarification about whether pipelines can charge a 
    separate fee for tracking multi-tiered allocations. Pipelines choosing 
    to provide a service tracking multi-tiered allocations may charge a 
    separate fee, as they are permitted to do for title transfer tracking. 
    Pipelines, however, cannot charge a separate fee for processing the 
    single tier of allocations required by the current regulations.
    4. Paper Pooling
        Pooling refers to the aggregation of gas from multiple physical or 
    logical points to a single physical or logical point.100 The 
    current standards provide shippers with the ability to both deliver gas 
    from receipt points into at least one pool and receive quantities at a 
    delivery point from at least one pool.101 Some pipelines 
    provide paper pools while others use physical pools in which shippers 
    have to pay transportation charges to move gas into the pools. GISB 
    could not reach a consensus on whether paper pooling should be 
    mandated, and shippers asked the Commission for a regulation requiring 
    that all pipelines establish paper pools into which shippers could 
    deliver gas without any additional transportation charge. In the NOPR, 
    the Commission declined to require pipelines to provide paper pooling, 
    finding that those advocating paper pools had not provided a sufficient 
    rationale for requiring the use of paper pools in all situations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \100\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.2.3.
        \101\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.3.17 and 1.3.18.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        NGSA and ProEnergy maintain the Commission should require pipelines 
    to provide paper pooling. They assert that pooling is a critical aspect 
    of a competitive marketplace, because the
    
    [[Page 20092]]
    
    aggregation of gas volumes eliminates the need to link each gas volume 
    to a specific source and destination. They contend that no 
    transportation charge should be charged since no transportation is 
    provided.
        The Commission agrees that pooling is an important aspect of the 
    marketplace and its regulations require pipelines to offer pooling. The 
    Commission, however, does not agree that for pooling to operate 
    efficiently each pipeline must offer paper pooling in which those 
    delivering gas into the pool are assessed no transportation charges. 
    Those requesting mandatory paper pooling have not demonstrated why 
    transportation charges must be assessed only on the outbound (out of 
    the pool) transportation component. When a pool exists in a rate zone, 
    a charge for transportation must be assessed either for gas coming into 
    the zone or for gas leaving the zone. In appropriate circumstances, the 
    Commission has recognized that pipelines may charge for transportation 
    into pools.102
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \102\ See Northwest Pipeline Company, 80 FERC para. 61,361, at 
    62,240-41 (1997); Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, 78 FERC para. 
    61,283, at 62,215 (1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        NGSA and NGC further contend that even if the Commission does not 
    mandate paper pooling, it should enact into regulation its current 
    policy that transportation into a pool is afforded the same 
    transportation priority as the transportation out of the pool. This 
    policy, however, is not sufficiently generic to be established through 
    regulation. In the circumstances of some cases, for instance, the 
    Commission has found that capacity should be allocated based on the 
    priority of the transportation into the pool, rather than the 
    transportation out of the pool.103
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \103\ See Northwest Pipeline Company, 79 FERC para. 61,259, at 
    62,119-20 (1997) (where shipper pays for transportation into a pool, 
    the priority does not depend on the priority of the take-away 
    contract).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    5. Reimbursement for Compressor Fuel
        When shippers nominate gas on pipelines, they need to reimburse the 
    pipelines for the gas needed to run compressors. The typical form of 
    reimbursement is in-kind fuel reimbursement, where the shipper includes 
    additional gas to cover the needs for compressor fuel. Typically, 
    pipelines include the applicable percentages for fuel reimbursement in 
    their tariffs. The Commission has adopted GISB standards that simplify 
    the process of in-kind fuel reimbursement.104 Some pipelines 
    also have established tariff provisions under which the pipeline 
    provides the fuel and receives reimbursement from the shipper for the 
    cost, usually through a fuel cashout at an indexed price.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \104\ 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations Related 
    Standards 1.3.16, 13.3.28 through 1.3.30. The standards provide, in 
    part, that pipelines must adhere to a standard method for 
    calculating fuel, make fuel reimbursement percentages effective only 
    at the beginning of the month, not reject nominations due to fuel 
    differences of less than 5 Dth, and provide a fuel matrix for 
    receipt and delivery point combinations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the NOPR, the Commission found no need to adopt additional 
    standards regarding in-kind or alternative fuel reimbursement 
    mechanisms. The Commission, however, did find that pipelines should 
    permit shippers, which do not want to calculate their own fuel charges, 
    to contract with third-parties to provide the required fuel.
        a. In-kind fuel reimbursement. Several commenters suggest that the 
    existing in-kind fuel reimbursement standards should be strengthened. 
    ECT maintains that the Commission often does not act on tariff filings 
    to revise fuel changes until the end of the month, which does not 
    provide sufficient time for shippers to reprogram their computers to 
    accommodate the change. ECT recognizes section 4 of the Natural Gas Act 
    (NGA) provides for 30-day notice prior to implementation of proposed 
    changes, but it, nevertheless, asks for a requirement that fuel rates 
    be made and accepted no later than the close of NYMEX trading, three 
    days before the end of the month. NGSA requests the adoption of a 
    regulation requiring fuel reimbursement to be calculated prospectively. 
    ProEnergy maintains that monthly fuel rate changes do not provide 
    sufficient predictability for parties to construct competitive gas 
    transactions. It argues that to improve the certainty of the process, 
    fuel changes should be made only once a year, with a mechanism to true-
    up actual with projected fuel use.
        The existing fuel standards represent a consensus agreement of the 
    industry, and the Commission does not find sufficient justification for 
    imposing the disputed standards suggested by the shippers. Given the 
    other risks that go into gas transactions, the change in cost 
    represented by a fuel change is not such a significant component of the 
    overall deal that it should dramatically affect shipper planning. 
    Pipelines may need to file for fuel rate changes under section 4 of the 
    NGA more frequently than the once a year recommended by the commenters. 
    For example, a yearly true-up would not deal with a continued 
    undercollection of fuel in individual months, which might require the 
    pipeline to purchase fuel, rather than relying on in-kind 
    reimbursement. The Commission also declines to restrict pipeline tariff 
    filings for changes in fuel rates so that the effective date is three 
    days prior to the end of the month, as ECT suggests. Even in those 
    cases where the filing happens to put the Commission's order on the 
    last day of the month, the shippers still have thirty days notice that 
    the fuel rates may change and can have their computer changes ready to 
    implement if the Commission approves the change.
        b. Fuel nominations from agents. Most of the comments address the 
    Commission's policy that pipelines should accept fuel nominations from 
    shippers' agents. The pipelines maintain the requirement is too 
    burdensome, because it introduces a second nomination that must be 
    coordinated with the shipper's nomination, requires changes in fuel 
    nominations with each intra-day nomination change, as well as creates 
    other complexities such as establishing priorities for fuel nominations 
    and determining which gas should be first through the 
    meter.105 The pipelines contend shippers already have 
    sufficient flexibility for supplying fuel, since they can nominate fuel 
    gas from a pool and can use a marketer or agent to provide all of their 
    gas requirements. Nicor Gas agrees that permitting separate fuel 
    nominations would create unnecessary burdens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \105\ Comments by CNG, Enron, INGAA, K N Interstate Group, Koch, 
    NGPL, NGT/MRT, Southern, Williston Basin, WGP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Several shippers,106 and Tennessee Pipelines, support 
    giving shippers the ability to buy fuel from a third-party, but some of 
    the commenters raise issues that, they assert, should be considered by 
    GISB in devising standards covering fuel nominations. PG&E contends the 
    Commission should not require pipelines to support third-party fuel 
    nominations now, but should defer decision until GISB works on 
    appropriate standards. TransCapacity outlines a series of timing and 
    other issues that need to be considered, such as what fuel gas to cut 
    in the case of an unscheduled or bumped nomination, the need for 
    standards regarding the simultaneity of fuel receipts to 
    transportation, and the timing of fuel and related transportation 
    nominations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \106\ Comments by NGC, NGSA, PG&E, SoCal Gas/SDG&E, 
    TransCapacity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Throughout this proceeding, shippers have sought standards that 
    would obviate the need, and the risk, of having to calculate fuel 
    reimbursement across multiple pipelines. If a shipper wants 100 MMBtus 
    delivered, it may want the flexibility to arrange for 100 MMBtus to
    
    [[Page 20093]]
    
    be injected into the system without having to worry about accurately 
    calculating how much extra gas is needed to meet multiple pipeline fuel 
    percentages. While the Commission is not requiring pipelines to provide 
    an alternative to in-kind fuel reimbursement, the pipelines need to 
    provide shippers with the option of contracting with a third-party who 
    would be responsible for calculating and injecting the required amount 
    of fuel. The option, suggested by the pipelines, of shippers using a 
    marketer to purchase all their gas supplies is not a substitute for 
    being able to use a marketer or third-party to provide fuel only. 
    Shippers may want to use their own contracts to buy and transport their 
    own gas, but use a third-party to avoid the difficulties of attempting 
    to calculate accurately the extra fuel reimbursement across numerous 
    pipelines.
        Indeed, some pipelines have recognized shippers' demand for an 
    alternative to in-kind fuel reimbursement and have included tariff 
    provisions allowing shippers to buy their fuel from the 
    pipeline.107 To create a more competitive market, the 
    Commission concludes that all pipelines should provide shippers the 
    option of nominating their fuel requirements from an agent separately 
    from their nomination of the gas used for transportation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \107\ See Koch Gateway Pipeline Company, 73 FERC para. 61,375 
    (1995), reh'g denied, 74 FERC para. 61,212 (1996), reh'g denied, 75 
    FERC para. 61,096 (1996), aff'd, 108 F.2d 397 (D.C. Cir. 1997); 
    Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 64 FERC para. 61,295, at 
    63,072 (1993).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission, however, will not require pipelines to honor fuel 
    nominations from third-parties until GISB has an opportunity to 
    consider the development of standards. The issues raised by third-party 
    fuel reimbursement do not seem so intractable that a reasonable set of 
    standards cannot be developed to cover this transaction. GISB has not 
    established a schedule for development of such standards. But these 
    issues seem related to the other issues relating to third-parties, such 
    as title transfer tracking and multi-tiered allocations, and adding 
    fuel standards to GISB's schedule for the fourth quarter of 1998 should 
    not appreciably complicate the issues being considered by GISB. The 
    Commission will, therefore, expect that proposed standards dealing with 
    third-party fuel reimbursement will be filed on December 31, 1998, 
    along with standards in these other areas.
    6. Penalty Determinations
        In the NOPR, the Commission declined to require pipelines to adopt 
    a disputed standard that would have required pipelines to determine 
    penalties on the basis of operational or actual data, whichever is 
    less. NGSA contends the Commission should adopt a standard basing 
    penalties on operational data. TransCapacity supports the Commission's 
    current policy of making individual determinations on this issue. For 
    example, it asserts that basing penalties on actual data is appropriate 
    when pipelines have small wells for which installing telemetering is 
    prohibitively expensive.
        Going beyond the issue in dispute at GISB, NGC asks the Commission 
    to impose a requirement that pipelines cash out imbalances at the price 
    in effect in the month the imbalance occurred, rather than in the month 
    when a prior period adjustment is made.
        The Commission finds no compelling justification for requiring 
    uniformity at this time on the limited issue of whether to base 
    penalties on operational or actual data. While the Commission's general 
    policy is that penalty categories should be determined based on the 
    data provided by the pipeline to the shipper,108 there may 
    be instances, as TransCapacity points out, in which this policy should 
    not be applied. Moreover, the issues raised by NGSA and NGC are only 
    small pieces of the penalty puzzle. Rather than attempting to resolve 
    these issues on a piecemeal basis, the Commission, and the industry, 
    needs to consider penalty issues on a more comprehensive basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \108\ See Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, 63 FERC para. 
    61,188, at 62,374 (1993); Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 63 
    FERC para. 61,100, at 61,486 (1993); Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
    Corporation, 55 FERC para. 61,446, at 62,369 (1991). Under the 
    Commission's policy, a shipper would be responsible only for the 
    penalty category it reasonably could have anticipated based on the 
    information provided by the pipeline. The cash out price, however, 
    should be based on the actual imbalance incurred.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    D. Market-Based Rates for Pipeline Services
    
        In several places in this preamble, the Commission has indicated 
    that pipelines may provide certain services--computerized imbalance 
    trading, title transfer tracking, and tracking of multi-tiered 
    allocations--and charge a separate fee for such services. WGP and Koch 
    contend that pipelines should be able to charge market-based rates for 
    such services, because they will be competing with third-party firms 
    providing comparable services. Under the Commission's Alternative Rate 
    Design Policy Statement,109 pipelines providing such 
    services may file a request for a Declaratory Order for market-based 
    rates if they can demonstrate that effective competition for the 
    service exists.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \109\ Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for 
    Natural Gas Pipelines (Request for Comments), 74 FERC 61,076 (1996).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    E. Implementation Schedule and Schedule for Submission of Additional 
    Standards
    
        To summarize, pipelines must comply with the following regulations 
    August 1, 1998: (1) adoption of Version 1.2 of the GISB standards in 
    section 284.10(b); 110 and (2) compliance with the 
    requirements in Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(ii) through (v) setting standards for 
    posting information on pipeline web sites, requiring that content be 
    the same regardless of the method of communication, requiring a cross-
    reference table for numeric designations, and establishing a retention 
    policy for electronic information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \110\ In filing to implement Version 1.2, pipelines need to 
    change all references to GISB standards in their tariffs to Version 
    1.2. The version number applies to all standards contained in GISB's 
    Version 1.2 Standards Manuals, including standards that have not 
    changed from prior versions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Implementation of the regulations regarding intra-day nominations, 
    Sec. 284.10(c)(1)(i), operational balancing agreements, 
    Sec. 284.10(c)(2)(i), trading of imbalances, Sec. 284.10(c)(2)(ii), and 
    Internet notification of critical notices, Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(vi), will 
    take place on a date to be set in the order adopting standards relating 
    to these activities.
        Pipelines must implement the regulation requiring the use of the 
    Internet for conducting transactions, Sec. 284.10(c)(3)(i), by June 1, 
    1999.
        The Commission expects the submission of proposed standards in the 
    following areas by the dates specified:
    
    June 30, 1998
        Operational Balancing Agreements and Imbalance Trading
    December 31, 1998
        Title Transfer Tracking, Cross-Contract Ranking, Fuel 
    Reimbursement, and Critical Notice Notification
    
    III. Information Collection Statement
    
        OMB's regulations in 5 CFR 1320.11 require that it approve certain 
    reporting and recordkeeping requirements (collections of information) 
    imposed by an agency. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB 
    shall assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents 
    subject to
    
    [[Page 20094]]
    
    the filing requirements of this Rule shall not be penalized for failing 
    to respond to these collections of information unless the collections 
    of information display valid OMB control numbers.
        The collections of information related to the subject Final Rule 
    fall under the existing reporting requirements of FERC-545, Gas 
    Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal) (OMB Control No. 1902-0154) 
    and FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural 
    Gas Pipelines (OMB Control No. 1902-0174). The following estimates of 
    reporting burden are related only to this Rule and include the costs 
    for pipelines to comply with Version 1.2 of the GISB standards and the 
    Commission's regulations regarding intra-day nominations, the use of 
    OBAs at pipeline interconnects, the trading of imbalances, and 
    communications using the Internet. The burden estimates are primarily 
    related to start-up and will not be on-going costs except for the 
    recordkeeping requirement.
        Public Reporting Burden: (Estimated Annual Burden).
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Total         Estimated       Estimated  
                Affected data collection                 Number of       responses       hours per      total hours 
                                                        respondents      (annual)        response        (annual)   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FERC-545........................................              93              93              58           5,394
    FERC-549C.......................................              93              93           4,483         416,919
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.......................................              93              93           4,541         422,313
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The total annual hours for collection (including recordkeeping) is 
    estimated to be 422,313. The average annualized cost for all 93 
    respondents is projected to be the following:
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Annualized                  
                                                                        Annualized         costs           Total    
                        Affected data collection                         capital/       (operations     annualized  
                                                                       startup costs        and            costs    
                                                                                       maintenance)                 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FERC-545........................................................        $284,303              $0        $284,303
    FERC-549C.......................................................      21,641,327         333,321      21,974,648
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
        Total.......................................................      21,925,630         333,321      22,258,951
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Koch questions the Commission's estimate of about $240,000 per 
    respondent, contending, in particular, that it underestimates the costs 
    of complying with the Internet requirements. Although Koch recognizes 
    the difficulty of estimating costs for services not yet offered, it 
    anticipates approximately $2 million in start-up costs for Internet 
    compliance alone.
        Koch is the only commenter raising questions about the Commission's 
    cost estimates. From the context of Koch's comment, it appears to be 
    questioning the costs of establishing an interactive web site. But, as 
    discussed earlier, this rule does not require pipelines to establish an 
    interactive web site; they are required only to conduct Internet 
    communications using EDI files, which Koch itself claims are less 
    expensive. Moreover, from the Commission's experience, the costs for 
    pipelines to create standardized interactive web sites should not be 
    inordinate. The Commission strongly encourages pipelines to jointly 
    develop a standardized interactive web site, which should significantly 
    reduce the costs for developing such systems. As NGC points out, 
    electric utilities saved substantial sums by jointly developing their 
    standardized Internet communication system. In any event, even if 
    Koch's estimate were accurate, the cost would be a one-time expenditure 
    and the benefits to the entire industry from creating a standardized 
    communication system would be worth the cost.
        The GISB standards and Commission regulations adopted in this Rule 
    are necessary to further the process begun in Order No. 587 of creating 
    a more efficient and integrated pipeline grid by standardizing the 
    business practices and electronic communications of interstate 
    pipelines. Requiring interstate pipelines to comply with these 
    standards and regulations will reduce the variations in pipeline 
    business and communication practices and will permit pipelines and 
    their customers to more efficiently obtain information from and 
    transact business across multiple pipelines.
        The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, 
    that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates 
    associated with the information requirements. The information required 
    in this Final Rule will be reported directly to the industry users and 
    later be subject to audit by the Commission. This information also will 
    be retained for a three year period. The implementation of these data 
    requirements will help the Commission carry out its responsibilities 
    under the Natural Gas Act and conforms to the Commission's plan for 
    efficient information collection, communication, and management within 
    the natural gas industry.
        Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
    requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
    888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael 
    Miller, Information Services Division, 202-208-1415] or the Office of 
    Management and Budget [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy 
    Regulatory Commission, 202-395-3087].
    
    IV. Environmental Analysis
    
        The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment 
    or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a 
    significant adverse effect on the human environment.\111\ The 
    Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
    requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
    environment.\112\ The actions taken here fall within categorical 
    exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are 
    clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering, 
    analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and 
    transportation of natural gas that
    
    [[Page 20095]]
    
    requires no construction of facilities.\113\ Therefore, an 
    environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in 
    this rulemaking.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \111\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
    Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
    Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 para. 30,783 (1987).
        \112\ 18 CFR 380.4.
        \113\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \114\ generally 
    requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
    The regulations adopted in this rule impose requirements only on 
    interstate pipelines, which are not small businesses, and these 
    requirements are, in fact, designed to reduce the difficulty of dealing 
    with pipelines by all customers, including small businesses. No 
    comments were submitted to the Commission alleging any significant 
    economic effect on small businesses. Accordingly, pursuant to section 
    605(b) of the RFA, the Commission hereby certifies that the regulations 
    proposed herein will not have a significant adverse impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \114\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    VI. Effective Date
    
        These regulations will become effective May 26, 1998. The 
    Commission has concluded, with the concurrence of the Administrator of 
    the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule 
    is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 251 of the Small Business 
    Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
    
    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284
    
        Continental shelf, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements; Incorporation by reference.
    
        By direction of the Commission.
    Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
    Acting 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 section 284.10, paragraph (a)(6) is added, paragraph (b)(1) 
    is revised, and paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 284.10  Standards for pipeline business operations and 
    communications.
    
        (a) * * *
        (6) A pipeline's obligation to provide information pursuant to this 
    paragraph will terminate when all relevant information is provided 
    pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
        (b) Incorporation by reference of GISB standards. (1) An interstate 
    pipeline that transports gas under subparts B or G of this part must 
    comply with the following business practice and electronic 
    communication standards promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards 
    Board, which are incorporated herein by reference:
        (i) Nominations Related Standards (Version 1.2, July 31, 1997), 
    with the exception of Standard 1.3.32;
        (ii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 1.2, July 31, 1997), 
    with the exception of Standards 2.3.29 and 2.3.30;
        (iii) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 1.2, July 31, 1997);
        (iv) Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards (Version 1.2, 
    July 31, 1997), with the exception of 4.3.4; and
        (v) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 1.2, July 31, 
    1997).
    * * * * *
        (c) Business practices and electronic communication requirements. 
    An interstate pipeline that transports gas under subparts B or G of 
    this part must comply with the following requirements. The regulations 
    in this paragraph adopt the abbreviations and definitions contained in 
    the Gas Industry Standards Board standards incorporated by reference in 
    paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
        (1) Nominations.
        (i) Intra-day nominations.
        (A) A pipeline must give scheduling priority to an intra-day 
    nomination submitted by a firm shipper over nominated and scheduled 
    volumes for interruptible shippers. When an interruptible shipper's 
    scheduled volumes are to be reduced as a result of an intra-day 
    nomination by a firm shipper, the interruptible shipper must be 
    provided with advance notice of such reduction and must be notified 
    whether penalties will apply on the day its volumes are reduced.
        (B) An intra-day nomination submitted on the day prior to gas flow 
    will take effect at the start of the gas day at 9 a.m. CCT.
        (2) Flowing gas.
        (i) Operational balancing agreements. A pipeline must enter into 
    Operational Balancing Agreements at all points of interconnection 
    between its system and the system of another interstate or intrastate 
    pipeline.
        (ii) Netting and trading of imbalances. A pipeline must establish 
    provisions permitting shippers and their agents to offset imbalances 
    accruing on different contracts held by the shipper with the pipeline 
    and to trade imbalances with other shippers where such imbalances have 
    similar operational impact on the pipeline's system.
        (3) Communication protocols.
        (i)(A) All electronic information provided and electronic 
    transactions conducted by a pipeline must be provided on the public 
    Internet. A pipeline must provide, upon request, private network 
    connections using internet tools, internet directory services, and 
    internet communication protocols and must provide these networks with 
    non-discriminatory access to all electronic information. A pipeline may 
    charge a reasonable fee to recover the costs of providing such an 
    interconnection.
        (B) A pipeline must implement this requirement no later than June 
    1, 1999.
        (ii) A pipeline must comply with the following requirements for 
    documents constituting public information posted on the pipeline web 
    site:
        (A) The 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;
        (B) Users must be able to search an entire document online for 
    selected words, and must be able to copy selected portions of the 
    documents; and
        (C) Documents on the web site should be directly downloadable 
    without the need for users to first view the documents on the web site.
        (iii) If a pipeline uses a numeric or other designation to 
    represent information, an electronic cross-reference table between the 
    numeric or other designation and the information represented must be 
    available to users, at a cost not to exceed reasonable shipping and 
    handling.
        (iv) A pipeline must provide the same content for all information 
    regardless of the electronic format in which it is provided.
        (v) A pipeline must maintain, for a period of three years, all 
    information displayed and transactions conducted electronically under 
    this section and be able to recover and regenerate all such electronic 
    information and documents. The pipeline must make this archived 
    information available in electronic form for a reasonable fee.
    
    [[Page 20096]]
    
        (vi) A pipeline must post notices of operational flow orders, 
    critical periods, and other critical notices on its Internet web site 
    and must notify affected parties of such notices in either of the 
    following ways to be chosen by the affected party: Internet E-Mail or 
    direct notification to the party's Internet URL address.
    
    [FR Doc. 98-10685 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
5/26/1998
Published:
04/23/1998
Department:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
98-10685
Dates:
Effective May 26, 1998. On August 1, 1998 pipelines must implement Sec. 284.10(b), which incorporates by reference Version 1.2 of the GISB standards, and the regulations, in Secs. 284.10(c)(3)(ii) through (v), relating to the standards for information posted on pipeline web sites, the content of information provided electronically, the use of numeric designations, and retention of electronic information.
Pages:
20072-20096 (25 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. RM96-1-007, Order No. 587-G
PDF File:
98-10685.pdf
CFR: (7)
18 CFR 284.10(b)
18 CFR 284.10(c)
18 CFR 284.10(c)(2)(i)
18 CFR 284.10(c)(1)(i)
18 CFR 284.10(c)(2)(i)
More ...