94-10920. Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-10920]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: May 6, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
    
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    
    18 CFR Part 284
    
    [Docket No. RM93-4-001]
    
     
    
    Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under Part 284 
    of the Commission's Regulations
    
    Issued: May 2, 1994.
    
    AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    
    ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
    issuing an order on rehearing of its final rule that adopted 
    regulations to standardize the content of, and procedures for 
    accessing, information relevant to the availability of service on 
    interstate pipelines. The Commission is granting rehearing on one 
    issue: the requirement to provide file downloads in an ASCII flat file 
    format.
    
    DATES: The implementation date for the regulations published on January 
    5, 1994 (59 FR 516) is June 1, 1994, except when specified otherwise.
    
    ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
    Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Michael Goldenberg, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy 
    Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 
    20426, (202) 208-2294.
    Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Economic Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory 
    Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 
    208-1283.
    Brooks Carter, Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation, Federal 
    Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, 
    DC. 20426, (202) 208-0666.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of 
    this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all 
    interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of 
    this document during normal business hours in Room 3104, 941 North 
    Capitol Street NE., Washington DC 20426.
        The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic 
    bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal 
    documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to 
    the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by 
    dialing (202) 208-1397. To access CIPS, set your communications 
    software to use 300, 1200, or 2400 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data 
    bits, and 1 stop bit. CIPS can also be accessed at 9600 bps by dialing 
    (202) 208-1781. The full text of this notice will be available on CIPS 
    for 30 days from the date of issuance. The complete text on diskette in 
    WordPerfect format may also be purchased from the Commission's copy 
    contractor, La Dorn Systems Corporation, also located in Room 3104, 941 
    North Capitol Street NE., Washington DC 20426.
    
    Table of Contents
    
    I. Introduction
    II. Background And Summary Of Order No. 563
    III. Issues Relating To Data Set Implementation And Maintenance
        A. Implementation Date
        B. Periodic Reports
        C. Mechanism For Making Revisions To The Data Sets
        D. Operation Of The Data Sets
        1. Mandatory, Optional, And Conditional Nature Of The Fields
        2. Pipeline Modification Of The Data Sets
    IV. Issues Relating to Specific Information Included In The Data 
    Sets
        A. Operationally Available (Unscheduled) Capacity
        1. Objection to Posting the Amount of Operationally Available 
    Capacity
        2. Derivation of the Estimates of Operationally Available 
    Capacity
        B. Unsubscribed Firm Capacity
        C. Information On Firm And Interruptible Flowing Volume
    V. Electronic Data Interchange
        A. ASCII Flat File Downloads
        B. Uploading And Subset Downloading
    VI. Common Codes
        A. Common Company Codes
        B. Common Transaction Point Codes
        1. Pipeline Responsibility to Provide the Data Base and Ensure 
    Reasonable Fees
        2. Point Locator Information
        3. Establishment of New Receipt and Delivery Points
    VII. Additional Standards
        A. Index Of Purchasers
        B. Business Practice Standards
    VIII. Recovery Of EBB Costs
    
        Before Commissioners: Elizabeth Anne Moler, Chair; Vicky A. Bailey, 
    James J. Hoecker, William L. Massey, and Donald F. Santa, Jr.
        Standards for electronic bulletin boards required under part 284 of 
    the Commission's Regulations, Docket No. RM93-4-001.
    Order No. 563-A
    Order on Rehearing
        Issued May 2, 1994.
    
    I. Introduction
    
        In Order No. 563,\1\ the Commission adopted a final rule requiring 
    the standardization of information relating to transportation of 
    natural gas across the interstate pipeline grid. The standards adopted 
    by the Commission reflected the consensus agreements reached by the 
    natural gas industry through a series of informal conferences 
    established by the Commission. Under these standards, pipelines will 
    have to provide access to the required information both on their 
    Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBBS) and through files which users can 
    download from the pipelines' computers to their own computers. 
    Pipelines are required to implement the requirements of this rule by 
    June 1, 1994, except for the requirements regarding a common code for 
    gas transaction points which are to be implemented by November 1, 1994.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\Standards For Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under Part 
    284 Of The Commission's Regulations, Order No. 563, 59 FR 516 (Jan. 
    5, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles  30,988 
    (. 23, 1993).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Nineteen parties have sought rehearing or clarification regarding 
    some of the requirements of the rule and the standards and 
    communication protocols.2 The Commission grants rehearing on one 
    issue, downloads in a standardized ASCII flat file format. The 
    Commission had required pipelines to provide for file downloads in two 
    formats: The first complied with established communication standards 
    and protocols for Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and the second 
    would have required that downloads be made available in a standardized 
    ASCII flat file specified by the Commission. The Commission agrees with 
    those seeking rehearing that the future of communications in the 
    industry will be enhanced by the development of one industry standard 
    based on established communication standards and protocols, rather than 
    by promulgation of a second non-standardized methodology that has 
    significant disadvantages compared with EDI. The Commission also 
    clarifies the requirements of the rule and the protocols as discussed 
    below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\The parties seeking rehearing and clarification are listed in 
    Appendix A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    II. Background and Summary of Order No. 563
    
        In Order No. 636,3 the Commission required pipelines to 
    establish EBBs to provide shippers with equal and timely access to 
    relevant information about the availability of service on their 
    systems, including service available through capacity release 
    transactions and firm and interruptible capacity available directly 
    from the pipeline.4 The Commission recognized that the efficiency 
    of capacity allocation would be enhanced by standardizing both the 
    content of capacity release information and the methods by which 
    shippers could access that information.5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations 
    Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and Regulation of 
    Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, 57 FR 13267 
    (Apr. 16, 1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles  30,939 (Apr. 8, 
    1992), order on reh'g, Order No. 636-A, 57 FR 36128 (Aug. 12, 1992), 
    III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles  30,950 (Aug. 3, 1992), order on 
    reh'g, Order No. 636-B, 57 FR 57911 (Dec. 8, 1992), 61 FERC  61,272 
    (1992).
        \4\18 CFR 284.8(b)(3)(4), 284.9(3)(4).
        \5\Order No. 636-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,549.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        To facilitate the development of industry standards, the Commission 
    established informal conferences between the staff and all interested 
    members of the gas industry. The participants at these conferences 
    divided their efforts into five Working Groups.6 The Working 
    Groups submitted a series of reports to the Commission summarizing 
    their deliberations and the agreements reached. The Commission noticed 
    these reports and provided an opportunity for public comment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \6\Working Groups 1 and 2 were responsible for developing data 
    sets setting forth the information concerning available capacity. 
    Working Group 3 was responsible for developing standards relating to 
    business transactions between pipelines and their customers 
    unrelated to the sale or release of capacity. Working Group 4 was 
    responsible for developing a set of communication protocols 
    governing the dissemination of the information. Working Group 5 was 
    responsible for developing codes to identify companies and common 
    transaction points.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The final rule adopted the consensus agreements reached by the 
    industry in the Working Groups, with only slight modifications. 
    Sections 284.8(b)(5) and 284.9(b)(4) require pipelines to provide 
    standardized information relating to firm and interruptible service on 
    their EBBs and to provide users with the ability to download the 
    standardized information in compliance with standardized procedures and 
    protocols. The rule provides that the details of the required 
    information, procedures, and protocols will be made available in a 
    document entitled ``Standardized Data Sets and Communication 
    Protocols,'' which will be available at the Commission's Public 
    Reference and Files Maintenance Branch.
        The standardized data sets specify the information concerning 
    capacity availability that pipelines must provide both on their on-line 
    EBBs and through downloadable files.7 This information includes 
    offers to sell firm capacity (either by the pipeline or releasing 
    shippers), bids for capacity, awards of capacity, withdrawals of 
    capacity offers and bids, operationally available (i.e., interruptible) 
    and unsubscribed firm capacity, and system-wide notices. In addition, 
    the Commission established a mechanism for creating a common code data 
    base for identifying pipeline transaction points, such as receipt and 
    delivery points.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \7\On-line EBB refers to a continuous computer connection 
    between a pipeline EBB and a user's computer in which the 
    information from the pipeline's computer is displayed visually on 
    the user's computer and the user can enter data directly to the 
    pipeline's computer. File downloading refers to the transfer, in 
    computerized format, of a file from the pipeline's computer to the 
    user's computer. The user then can use other computer programs to 
    manipulate the data off-line when it is not connected to the 
    pipeline's computer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The communication protocols establish principles and procedures 
    relating to the operation of pipeline EBBs and the provision of 
    downloadable files to users. The most important of these protocols is 
    the requirement that the pipelines provide downloadable files that 
    conform to the standards for Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) 
    promulgated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
    Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12.8 In addition to EDI, the 
    Commission had required the pipelines to provide for file downloads in 
    a standardized ASCII flat file format,9 but the Commission is 
    deleting this requirement on rehearing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \8\ASC X12 standards provide an electronic data submission 
    capability that allows computers to exchange information over 
    communication lines using standardized formats. Since the ASC X12 
    transaction sets provide generic data groups applicable to a range 
    of potential applications, the transaction sets must be customized 
    to individual applications by correlating or ``mapping'' the 
    specific information to an ASC X12 transaction set through an 
    implementation guide.
        \9\ASCII refers to the American Standard Code for Information 
    Interchange, a code for character representation. ASC X12 downloads 
    also use ASCII characters. The term ASCII flat file download refers 
    to a standardized file download capability that does not meet the 
    requirements of the ASC X12 standards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the rule, the Commission recognized that as pipelines began the 
    process of implementing the data sets, they could discover problems 
    requiring modifications. The Commission stated that pipelines should 
    communicate any problems to the Working Groups, which should make the 
    necessary modifications to the data set and submit them to the 
    Commission in sufficient time to permit implementation of the 
    requirements by June 1, 1994.
        On March 4, 1994, Working Groups 1 & 2 filed revised capacity 
    release data sets and an implementation guide for downloading these 
    data sets using EDI. Public notice was given of the filing with an 
    opportunity for comments. By order dated April 1, 1994, the Commission 
    accepted the revised data sets and implementation guide.10
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\059 FR 16537 (Apr. 7, 1994), 67 FERC  61,006 (1994).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The initial Working Group reports included a number of issues on 
    which the Working Groups had not yet reached agreement. In the Notice 
    of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission concluded that the 
    Working Groups should take more time to consider these issues and try 
    to reach consensus. The Commission provided that the Working Groups 
    submit reports on these matters to the Commission by February 1, 1994. 
    In Order No. 563, the Commission found that resolution of these issues 
    should await the February 1, 1994 reports. Nevertheless, many of the 
    requests for rehearing and clarification address the same issues.
        The Commission has received a number of reports from the Working 
    Groups, which were publicly noticed with an opportunity for 
    comments.11 When appropriate, the Commission will address these 
    issues in this order to provide the Working Groups with guidance as to 
    how to proceed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\1Working Groups 1 & 2 could not reach consensus on several 
    issues, and submitted reports from participants on the following 
    issues: proposals for electronic index of purchasers which would 
    provide information about the capacity rights of firm shippers, 
    position papers on whether to require disclosure of aggregate firm 
    and interruptible nominations at pipeline points, and position 
    papers on the methods for recovering electronic communication costs. 
    Working Group 5 submitted reports on a consensus agreement for 
    implementing a common code for company names. Working Group 4 
    submitted a final report on communication protocols and operational 
    logistics. Working Group 3 submitted a report containing a proposal 
    for implementing standards for nominations and confirmations and a 
    schedule for developing standards for other business transactions. 
    Several participants also submitted position papers on the issue of 
    ASCII flat file downloads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission will address the issues raised by the rehearing 
    requests in the following areas: data set implementation and 
    maintenance; specific information included, or proposed to be included, 
    in the data sets (operationally available capacity, unsubscribed firm 
    capacity, and firm and interruptible flowing volume); electronic 
    communication issues (ASCII flat file downloads, file uploads, and 
    subset downloads); common codes for companies and gas transaction 
    points; additional standards for an Index of Purchasers and non-
    capacity business transactions; and proposals relating to the method 
    for recovering the costs for implementing standards.
    
    III. Issues Relating to Data Set Implementation And Maintenance
    
    A. Implementation Date
    
        AER/MRT contend that the June 1, 1994 implementation date places 
    too great a burden on the pipelines, because they are still in the 
    midst of refining their restructured services and the compliance burden 
    falls during the critical shoulder months between January and March. 
    They suggest a December 1, 1994 date. In particular, they contend that 
    they require the implementation guide for the ASC X12 data sets by 
    February 1, 1994, and suggest that, if that date is not met, the June 
    1, 1994 date should be relaxed.
        The Commission will not change the implementation date. In Order 
    No. 563, the Commission agreed to extend the implementation date from 
    the April 1, 1994 date proposed in the NOPR until June 1, 1994. But, 
    with this extension, the Commission expected a fully operational set of 
    standards to be in place by June 1. Working Groups 1 and 2 stated in 
    their comments that the June 1 date can be met if the ASC X12 
    implementation guide is available by March 1, 1994, and the Working 
    Groups substantially met this deadline, filing the data sets and 
    implementation guide with the Commission on March 4, 1994, with public 
    notice given on March 7, 1994. AER/MRT is the only party alleging that 
    the June 1 date cannot be met, and they have not provided sufficient 
    justification for extending the date further.
    
    B. Periodic Reports
    
        In Order No. 563, the Commission found no need for requiring 
    pipelines to file tariffs specifying how they would comply with the 
    rule or to file periodic reports of their implementation progress. UDC/
    AGD renew their request that pipelines be required to file periodic 
    reports. Without such reports, they maintain no formal procedure would 
    exist to provide information on implementation progress or problems. 
    They further claim such reports would provide useful information about 
    the development of the secondary market and the interplay between 
    interruptible and released capacity.
        The Commission denies the request for rehearing. As stated in Order 
    No. 563, the Commission will monitor implementation of the rule by 
    accessing the pipelines' EBBs, continuing to hold industry conferences, 
    and by examining complaints. These mechanisms provide a far more 
    flexible method of oversight than attempting to specify particular 
    items of information for inclusion in periodic reports. As stated 
    earlier, the Commission is committed to monitoring the EBBs and the 
    implementation of the standards, and to making revisions when needed.
    
    C. Mechanism for Making Revisions to the Data Sets
    
        In Order No. 563, the Commission recognized that the 
    standardization process was an ongoing one, which would require 
    revisions and modifications to the data sets and protocols as the 
    industry obtains experience with operations under the standards. The 
    Commission stated it would continue the informal conferences and the 
    Working Groups as the best means for monitoring the standards, but did 
    not adopt a specific mechanism for implementing proposed changes. The 
    Commission found that its determination of the proper method for making 
    revisions may depend on the type of change contemplated. The Commission 
    stated, however, that in considering proposed changes, it would comply 
    with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and ensure parties have 
    notice and an opportunity to comment on proposed changes.
        Tenneco Gas asserts that providing a mechanism for addressing 
    changes to the standards is critical and requests the Commission to 
    adopt a specific mechanism for making changes, which is both flexible 
    and responsive. KGPC contends many participants are unable to commit 
    the resources to remain actively involved in the Working Group process 
    and urges the Commission to ensure adequate communication to the 
    industry of proposed changes with an opportunity for comment. AER/MRT 
    similarly request clarification that the Commission will comply with 
    the APA and provide notice and an opportunity for comment.
        The Commission recognizes that the standards and protocols will 
    have to be revised and that a flexible mechanism is needed for 
    effectuating such changes. To provide the needed flexibility, the 
    Commission adopted only a general regulation referencing the separate 
    standards and protocols and did not include those standards and 
    protocols in the Code of Federal Regulations. However, as explained in 
    Order No. 563, the Commission cannot commit to one method for making 
    revisions because different circumstances may demand different 
    procedural mechanisms; for example, maintenance of the existing data 
    sets may be treated differently than implementation of new 
    requirements. As stated in Order No. 563, in making changes, the 
    Commission will adhere to the APA and provide notice and an opportunity 
    for public comment before implementing changes.
        The Commission will clarify that the process for maintenance of the 
    data sets promulgated in the rule will be generally the same as the 
    process used previously to adopt the revised data sets and 
    implementation guide. The Working Groups will file their suggested 
    changes, which will be noticed with an opportunity provided for 
    comment. To facilitate discussion or improve understanding of proposed 
    changes, Commission staff may convene a technical conference to review 
    the changes with the industry. The Commission will then issue an order 
    adopting the data sets. This process will enable the Commission to make 
    changes in a timely fashion while still preserving the industry's 
    ability to comment on the changes. The Commission also encourages the 
    Working Groups to consider other methods of informing non-participants 
    of impending changes prior to filing with the Commission so that the 
    Working Groups themselves will be able to avail themselves of a broad 
    spectrum of input.
        While the Commission recognizes the need to revise the data sets, 
    it also recognizes that making revisions and changes on a piecemeal 
    basis may be cumbersome and create added programming costs for both the 
    pipelines and those obtaining information either from the EBBs or 
    through downloadable files. The Commission encourages the Working 
    Groups to consider an appropriate schedule for accumulating and 
    submitting revisions.
        Tenneco Gas states it did not understand that the Working Groups 
    would continue indefinitely. AER/MRT contend that the Working Groups 
    provide only a temporary solution and urge the Commission to recognize 
    the contemplated Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) as the appropriate 
    group to handle standards development. Although GISB is still in its 
    formative stage, AER/MRT recommend the Commission endorse GISB and 
    charge it with the mission of further standards development. Columbia 
    Distribution suggests that one Working Group would be more efficient 
    than the current five, because the participants in the five Working 
    Groups are essentially the same and one Working Group would streamline 
    the process.
        The Commission finds that some mechanism for consideration and 
    modification of the standards, whether GISB or the Working Groups, must 
    continue into the future. At this point, reliance on the GISB concept 
    is premature, and the Commission will continue the Working Group 
    process which has worked very well in developing standards. As stated 
    in Order No. 563, the Commission will consider the GISB concept when a 
    final proposal has been developed and the Commission can consider its 
    impact on all facets of the gas industry. Meanwhile, the Working Groups 
    should not delay or defer development of standards in anticipation of 
    the implementation of GISB. The Commission will leave the structure of 
    the Working Groups to be resolved by the industry at the informal 
    conferences.12
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\2At an informal conference held on April 12, 1994, the 
    participants did decide to consolidate into one Working Group. See 
    Notice of Consolidation of Electronic Bulletin Board Working Groups, 
    issued April 19, 1994. The Commission expects the combined Working 
    Group to adhere to the schedules set forth in the rehearing requests 
    and other filings submitted by the individual Working Groups.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    D. Operation of the Data Sets
    
    1. Mandatory, Optional, and Conditional Nature of the Fields
        In the consensus data sets adopted by Order No. 563, data fields 
    were denominated as mandatory, optional, and conditional.13 The 
    Commission found that the rule required all pipelines to support the 
    mandatory data fields. Pipelines would choose whether to support the 
    optional fields, unless they were required to support these fields by 
    their tariff. The Commission also stated that pipelines were required 
    to display all information, whether mandatory or optional, on their on-
    line EBBs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\3Conditional fields are filled only when a condition in 
    another field is met.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        AER/MRT seek clarification that the Commission was standardizing 
    only the information to be provided on the on-line EBBs, not the format 
    in which the information is to be displayed. Others seek clarification 
    about the display of all the mandatory data fields on the on-line 
    EBBs.14 They contend certain mandatory fields in the downloadable 
    data sets are required only for file transfers, but not for 
    interactive, on-line transactions. They assert users of on-line EBBs 
    will know some of the information in the mandatory fields without 
    having it displayed, so that required posting of the information is 
    unnecessary and will only clutter the EBB screens.15 They maintain 
    that the only requirement should be that the on-line EBB contain 
    information comparable to the data sets.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\4KGPC, PEC Pipeline Group, Tenneco Gas, Working Groups 1 & 2.
        \1\5Working Groups 1 & 2 point to the fields for rate schedule, 
    stand-alone offer indicator (whether the offer is tied to another 
    offer), and offer type (indicating the type of capacity being 
    offered) as examples of information that would be implicitly known 
    to users of on-line EBBs and so need not be included on the EBB 
    display.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        KGPC, PEC Pipeline Group, and AER/MRT also request clarification 
    that pipelines are not required to display optional information on 
    their on-line EBBs unless they choose to do so or their tariffs require 
    the display of that information. NGC requests clarification that 
    pipelines must support the conditional fields.
        The Commission will clarify its requirements. The Commission 
    required all pipelines to support the mandatory fields because Order 
    No. 563 included certain substantive requirements that pipelines may 
    not previously have been required by their restructuring orders to 
    disclose on their EBBs. For example, not all pipelines may be providing 
    the information found in the operationally available capacity and 
    critical notice data sets on their EBBs. The intent of the requirement 
    was only to ensure that the downloadable data sets and the on-line EBBs 
    conveyed comparable information. Accordingly, the Commission agrees 
    that fields not required for on-line EBB use need not be displayed, so 
    long as the on-line EBB and the downloadable data set convey comparable 
    information.
        Display of optional fields on the on-line EBB must take place when 
    such fields are included in the downloadable data sets (unless, as 
    stated above, they are not necessary for on-line use). Conditional 
    fields must be supported by the pipelines when the conditional field is 
    dependent on information in a mandatory field.16 If the 
    conditional field is predicated on the response to an optional field, 
    the conditional field will have to be supported only if the pipeline 
    supports the optional field.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\6For example, the prearranged deal field is a mandatory field 
    requiring a yes/no response. Pipelines, therefore, must support all 
    the fields conditioned on the response to the prearranged deal 
    field.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    2. Pipeline Modification of the Data Sets
        In Order No. 563, the Commission stated that pipelines could not 
    add fields to, or delete fields from, the data sets, finding that 
    standardization required that all pipelines use the same structure for 
    downloading. ASC X12 software is keyed to specific fields on the 
    implementation guide, and the Commission was concerned that if 
    pipelines could add or delete fields, shippers' software could not 
    interpret the information. The Commission pointed out that the data 
    sets were designed flexibly to accommodate special release offers or 
    unique circumstances by including fields for special terms and 
    miscellaneous notes.
        KGPC contends EDI permits the addition of fields without inhibiting 
    communication with parties not using the additional fields. It asserts 
    the Commission should not unnecessarily inhibit the ability of the 
    pipelines to customize their EDI transactions with trading partners.
        Although KGPC is correct that fields can be added to the ASC X12 
    data sets without affecting the ability of others to use the original 
    version, the Commission is concerned that if pipelines routinely add 
    fields, the result would be a plethora of non-standard data bases, and 
    users of multiple pipeline data bases could have difficulty accessing 
    information that others could obtain.17 The Commission, therefore, 
    will not permit pipelines to add additional fields.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\7A simple example would be a standardized data set with 30 
    items. If pipeline 1 added data item 31 and pipeline 2 added data 
    item 31 to provide different information, a user of both pipelines 
    would be unable to use the 31st data item because its meaning would 
    not be standardized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Working Groups 1 & 2 are concerned about situations in which the 
    circumstances facing a particular pipeline do not fit the standardized 
    format. They cite, as an example, a mandatory data field denominated a 
    yes/no (Y/N) field and a pipeline needing a third category (U) for 
    unknown. They suggest the following working principle for dealing with 
    these problems: the pipeline will make a good faith effort to comply 
    with the data sets, but if it cannot, it must explain any discrepancies 
    and seek a correction through the Working Group process.
        The Commission is concerned about pipelines changing the meaning of 
    data set items. While the addition of an unknown element for a field, 
    as Working Group 1 & 2 suggest, would seem unlikely to cause major 
    communication difficulties, the Commission cannot determine whether 
    other changes in meaning might adversely affect those seeking to obtain 
    information from multiple pipelines.18 Thus, pipelines should make 
    every effort to use the data sets as promulgated, for instance, using a 
    ``no'' indicator or the miscellaneous note field even if these are not 
    optimum solutions. When pipelines encounter difficulties in using the 
    standardized data sets, they should inform the Working Groups so that 
    revisions can be considered. Once changes are received from the Working 
    Groups, the Commission is committed to reviewing them as quickly as 
    possible, but the Working Group changes may not be implemented 
    unilaterally without Commission approval.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\8For example, those using multiple pipelines may have 
    difficulty learning of such changes, and their computer software may 
    not be able to effectively process data sets from multiple pipelines 
    if the meanings of elements are different.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    IV. Issues Relating to Specific Information Included in the Data Sets
    
    A. Operationally Available (Unscheduled) Capacity
    
        The Commission adopted the Working Groups' consensus agreement to 
    require the pipelines to provide information on the amount of 
    unscheduled capacity available at specific locations, such as receipt 
    and delivery points, mainline, or mainline segments. The Commission 
    found that this information satisfied the pipelines' obligation to post 
    the capacity available for interruptible service.19
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\918 CFR 284.9(b)(3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    1. Objection To Posting the Amount of Operationally Available Capacity
        TGPL requests rehearing of the requirement to post the actual 
    quantity of unscheduled capacity. It contends the posting of detailed 
    information on unscheduled capacity will serve only to reduce the value 
    of interruptible and firm service, because potential shippers can use 
    the unscheduled capacity information to demand the lowest price for the 
    capacity. It asserts the regulatory obligation to post interruptible 
    capacity could be satisfied by the pipelines simply indicating that 
    interruptible capacity is available.
        The Commission denies TGPL's rehearing request. The Working Groups 
    reached a consensus agreement to provide unscheduled capacity, and TGPL 
    is the only party raising an objection. Moreover, a marker indicating 
    that interruptible capacity is available is not sufficient to comport 
    with the regulatory requirement to post available capacity. Under the 
    Commission's open access regulations, pipelines cannot withhold 
    available capacity, and shippers, therefore, have the right to know the 
    amount of capacity available. Moreover, shippers need to know the 
    amount of interruptible capacity available in order to make a 
    reasonable determination of whether interruptible service is sufficient 
    for their needs or whether they need to seek released firm service.
    2. Derivation of the Estimates of Operationally Available Capacity
        In Order No. 563, the Commission stated that the data for 
    operationally available capacity could be estimates, and left to the 
    Working Groups the issue of whether an additional field would be needed 
    to describe how the estimates were derived. Working Groups 1 & 2 
    reached agreement that a new field was not needed. They suggest a good 
    faith effort by each pipeline to provide a commercially reasonable 
    estimate using internally consistent methods is sufficient. The 
    Commission, therefore, will not require the additional field at this 
    time.
    
    B. Unsubscribed Firm Capacity
    
        KGPC requests clarification that the Commission's reference in 
    Order No. 563 to pipelines' posting their available firm capacity in 
    the offer data set does not require any change in its current practices 
    for posting its available firm capacity. KGPC states that, because it 
    is a grid system with thousands of receipt and delivery points, it 
    cannot post in the offer data set the myriad configurations of firm 
    capacity paths that might be available.20 Instead, it states that 
    it posts on its EBB the capacity available at each point and the 
    subscribed capacity at each point. Potential shippers then request 
    possible combinations of capacity paths, and if KGPC determines firm 
    capacity is available along these paths, the resulting firm service 
    will be posted in the capacity offer section of the EBB.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\0The offer data sets would require the pipeline to define the 
    points between which the capacity is being offered.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The revised data sets submitted by Working Groups 1 & 2, and 
    adopted by the Commission have accommodated KGPC's concern. The 
    operationally available capacity data set includes fields permitting 
    pipelines to post unsubscribed capacity available at receipt and 
    delivery points, as KGPC states it does now. Once a potential shipper 
    submits a request for a capacity path that is available, the pipeline 
    would then post the offer for that path in the offer data set.
    
    C. Information on Firm and Interruptible Flowing Volume
    
        NGSA and NGC contend the Commission needs to require additional 
    information to satisfy the pipelines' obligations to post available 
    firm and interruptible service.21 NGSA asserts the firm capacity 
    available through capacity release is only a piece of the total picture 
    of firm capacity needed by potential shippers. NGSA contends the 
    Commission also should require pipelines to post the total amount of 
    unscheduled (potentially available) firm capacity. NGC contends 
    potential shippers cannot make reasonable pricing decisions unless they 
    know flowing primary firm volumes, flowing secondary firm volumes, 
    flowing interruptible volumes, and unscheduled volumes. KGPC, on the 
    other hand, maintains that the Commission should not require the 
    posting of any information in addition to the unscheduled capacity 
    already required.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\118 CFR 284.8(b)(3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Working Groups 1 & 2 were unable to reach consensus on whether to 
    require additional information about firm and interruptible volumes or 
    nominations at each point. Their February 24, 1994 report contained 
    papers from three groups on this issue. One group22 supported the 
    arguments of NGSA and NGC that detailed information about flowing firm 
    and interruptible volumes is needed for shippers to make informed 
    decisions about the capacity to purchase.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\2Ad hoc Group of Power Generators, American Iron & Steel 
    Institute, Amoco Production Company, Baltimore Gas & Electric, 
    Chevron U.S.A. Production Company, Conoco, Inc., Destec Energy, 
    Edison Electric Institute, Fuel Manager's Association, Gaslantic 
    Corporation, GPM Gas Corporation, Marathon Oil Company, Natural Gas 
    Clearinghouse, New England Power Company, O & R Energy Inc., Oryx 
    Gas Marketing Company, Oryx Energy Company, Phillips Gas Marketing 
    Company, Phillips Petroleum, Company, Process Gas Consumers, Texaco 
    Gas Marketing, Inc., Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc., Virginia Power 
    Company.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        A second group23 opposes providing any additional data. They 
    contend the information is not readily available, the costs of 
    providing it would be high, and the information is not related to 
    capacity release. They also assert the information would tilt the 
    capacity release market to favor capacity seekers at the expense of 
    capacity holders. Whenever the information showed that significant 
    interruptible volumes are scheduled to flow, they maintain the value of 
    released firm capacity would be devalued. They further contend the now 
    devalued released capacity will displace interruptible pipeline 
    capacity, thereby reducing the interruptible revenue credits provided 
    to firm shippers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\3ANR Pipeline Company, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Colorado 
    Interstate Gas Company, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited 
    Partnership, Koch Gateway, Natural Gas Pipeline Company, Transco Gas 
    Pipeline, Williston Basin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        A third group24 submitted a compromise seeking to balance the 
    need for information about flowing volumes with the costs of providing 
    that information. Under their proposal, the pipelines would provide a 
    ``flag'' indicating that interruptible volumes are flowing at a point 
    which would otherwise have no operationally available capacity. They 
    assert that this flag would alert both buyers and sellers that firm 
    capacity at the point is available and could be valuable: if 
    interruptible volumes are flowing at a point that is operationally 
    full, a purchaser of firm capacity could bump the interruptible 
    shippers.25 They assert the cost of providing this flag is less 
    than the cost of providing the estimated quantities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\4Algonquin Gas Transmission, Consolidated Natural Gas, East 
    Tennessee Natural Gas, Enron Corp., Kern River Gas Transmission, 
    Midcon, Midwestern Gas Transmission, National Registry, Natural Gas 
    Pipe Line, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line, Producer-Marketer-
    Transportation Group, Southern California Edison, Southern 
    California Gas, Tennessee Gas Pipeline, Texas Eastern Transmission, 
    Trunkline Gas Company, Washington Gas, Williston Basin Interstate 
    Pipeline.
        \2\5If the shipper sought to use interruptible transportation, 
    it might not be able to receive service if the point was 
    constrained. Its ability to receive service would depend on the 
    pipeline's tariff mechanism for allocating interruptible capacity 
    when requests exceed demand.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Public notice of these filings was given on March 3, 1994, and the 
    PEC Pipeline Group submitted a comment supporting the interruptible 
    flag proposal. It contends the flag provides a reliable indicator of 
    the availability of firm capacity (by showing that interruptible gas is 
    flowing), but at a fraction of the cost of the proposal to post flowing 
    volumes.
        The Commission finds that the flag proposal identifying when 
    interruptible capacity is flowing at constraint points provides a 
    reasonable compromise between informing users that firm capacity may be 
    available at certain locations and the costs of providing that 
    information. With the addition of information on interruptible capacity 
    provided by the ``flag,'' shippers will have a sufficiently broad range 
    of information about capacity availability. They will know the amount 
    of capacity available at points (operationally available capacity), 
    whether firm capacity is available at constraint points (interruptible 
    flag), the firm capacity available through posted release transactions, 
    and the unsubscribed firm capacity available from the pipeline. This 
    information should be sufficient for shippers to make reasonable 
    decisions about the transportation option to select. The Working Groups 
    must include the interruptible flag in the next iteration of the data 
    sets.
    
    V. Electronic Data Interchange
    
    A. ASCII Flat File Downloads
    
        In addition to adopting the consensus agreement to require EBB 
    operators to provide for electronic file downloading using EDI, the 
    Commission also required pipelines to make the data sets available in a 
    standardized ASCII flat file format in an effort to ease the transition 
    to EDI for those not familiar with this technology. The Gas*Flow group, 
    which was to develop the EDI implementation guide, also was to provide 
    the ASCII flat file formats.
        A number of parties seek rehearing or modification of the 
    requirement to provide downloads in a standardized ASCII flat file 
    format.26 They contend the requirement for ASCII flat file 
    downloads goes beyond the consensus agreement of Working Group 4, which 
    left the provision of ASCII flat file downloads up to the pipeline. 
    They assert that imposing a redundant download capability is costly and 
    provides little benefit. Natural and INGAA contend the requirement is 
    unjustified since only two comments on the NOPR requested ASCII flat 
    file downloads and the Commission failed to make an effort to estimate 
    the number of customers wanting to use ASCII flat files. Tenneco Gas 
    maintains ASCII flat file downloads pose a risk to the receiver of 
    information, because they do not contain the safeguards inherent in the 
    ASC X12 process. AER/MRT assert the Commission should limit the 
    requirement to provide ASCII flat file downloads to seven months, which 
    will provide a sufficient transition period while reducing the burden 
    on the pipeline to maintain two formats indefinitely. A number of 
    parties also argue that Gas*Flow will not be supporting ASCII flat file 
    standards because such an effort goes beyond its charter.27
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\6AER/MRT, INGAA, Natural, PEC Pipeline Group, Tenneco Gas, 
    TGPL, Working Groups 1 & 2.
        \2\7Natural, TGPL, Tenneco Gas, Working Groups 1 & 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Working Groups 1 & 2, PEC Pipeline Group, TGPL, and Tenneco Gas 
    suggest that, if the ASCII flat file requirement is not eliminated, the 
    Commission modify the requirement that the pipelines provide ASCII flat 
    file downloads according to a standardized format. Instead, they 
    recommend the pipelines be free to develop their own ASCII flat file 
    format.28 TGPL believes standardization is not needed because 
    customers wanting to use ASCII flat files in place of ASC X12 are most 
    likely to be small customers transacting business primarily, if not 
    exclusively, on a single pipeline.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\8Working Groups 1 & 2 assert each pipeline should be 
    responsible for defining its ASCII flat file in either a fixed field 
    or delimited form. It encourages the pipelines to use the same field 
    names as in the Commission approved data sets and to apply the 
    pipelines' format (fixed field or delimited) consistently across all 
    customers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission also has received filings from Working Group 3 and 
    other parties arguing that while ASCII flat file downloads are easy to 
    document and import into spreadsheet programs, communication using 
    ASCII flat files has significant disadvantages when compared with ASC 
    X12 communication.29 The cited disadvantages of ASCII flat file 
    downloads are: the ASCII flat file format itself is inefficient and 
    inflexible, because it relies on sequential data display; ASCII flat 
    files are less reliable because validation programs are available for 
    ASC X12, but not for ASCII flat files; the lack of validation also 
    makes using ASCII flat files more labor intensive and expensive; and 
    ASCII flat files do not provide a foundation for further 
    standardization in the industry as does ASC X12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\9March 9, 1994, filing from Working Groups 1 & 2, and March 
    25, 1994 filing from Working Group 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Although Enron Gas Services Corporation created an ASCII flat file 
    format should the Commission wish to use it, neither Enron nor Gas*Flow 
    supports the use of ASCII downloads. Enron further states that 
    requiring pipelines to provide ASCII flat file downloads is not 
    necessary even for users wanting to use a flat file format. It 
    maintains that these users can obtain commercially available software 
    at low cost which will translate the ASC X12 information into an ASCII 
    flat file format.
        The Commission will grant rehearing and eliminate the requirement 
    that pipelines provide an ASCII flat file download.30 Working 
    Group 4 reached consensus on using only EDI as the industry standard 
    for file downloading.31 Both Working Groups 1 & 2 and Working 
    Group 3 oppose the ASCII flat file requirement as not being in the long 
    term interest of the industry. Moreover in response to the NOPR's 
    request for comment on this issue, only two commenters favored a 
    requirement that pipelines provide a flat ASCII download.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\0The provision of file downloads through EDI will be 
    sufficient to satisfy the Commission's requirement for file 
    downloads in Order No. 636. 18 CFR 284.8(b)(4)(i). Pipelines, 
    however, are still free to provide an ASCII download to their 
    customers.
        \3\1The Working Group left the issue of whether to provide ASCII 
    flat file downloads up to each pipeline depending on its assessment 
    of its customers' needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        On reconsideration, the Commission agrees with those requesting 
    rehearing that the future of electronic communications in this industry 
    will be better served by establishing one industry standard based on 
    already established communication protocols, such as ASC X12 EDI, 
    rather than by developing a second system which is not based on 
    recognized communication standards and which would provide a less 
    reliable method of communication. The provision of a transition period 
    to EDI does not warrant the expense of establishing a standardized 
    ASCII download capability. Users that are not currently EDI capable 
    will still be able to use the EBBs to conduct capacity release 
    transactions while they are learning EDI.32 In addition, ASCII 
    flat files may be designed in different configurations depending on the 
    customer's use for that data. The Commission's specification of a 
    particular format, therefore, would not necessarily have met customers' 
    needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\2Those pipelines that currently provide ASCII downloads in 
    the pipeline's proprietary format must provide a grace period for 
    their users if they do not intend to continue to support such 
    downloads in the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Moreover, the Commission's adoption of ASC X12 EDI standards for 
    communication has created the foundation for software vendors to 
    develop specific software or other services which will convert the 
    standardized ASC X12 EDI data into the file structures needed by users, 
    whether large or small. For example, in other industries, software 
    vendors have developed low-cost desktop EDI translators for personal 
    computers that convert from EDI to a flat ASCII file structure (a 
    ``canned'' file structure) without the user having to understand EDI or 
    learn how to program or operate the translator.33 The Commission 
    is confident that all customers will be able to acquire software or 
    other services that meet their individual data communication needs at 
    reasonable prices. Relying on the market to develop such services is 
    preferable to the Commission mandating a second file download structure 
    that may not even provide a good fit with customers' needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\3Other EDI translators permit customers to map the EDI data 
    set to the customers' individual needs. While this feature provides 
    greater versatility than a specified or canned translation, it does 
    require understanding of EDI and the translator program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    B. Uploading and Subset Downloading
    
        In Order No. 563, the Commission stated that the ability of users 
    to transmit (upload) capacity release files to the pipelines' computers 
    and to download subsets of files would enhance communication efficiency 
    for capacity release transactions. File upload capability would permit 
    users to submit offers to release and bids without using the pipelines' 
    EBBs, while subset downloads would permit users to obtain only the 
    capacity release files they need.
        KGPC contends the development of file uploads and subset downloads 
    should be driven by market demand, so the pipeline has some assurance 
    its customers want the service before being compelled to provide it. 
    Tenneco Gas suggests the development of file uploads for capacity be 
    delayed until after the upload capability being developed by the 
    Working Groups for nominations and confirmations is underway. It 
    contends most industry participants at the Commission's conference gave 
    first priority to the development of upload capability for nominations 
    and that upload capability for capacity release, particularly for bids, 
    is more difficult to develop. It also states upload capability should 
    be market driven, because the parties supplying the upload information 
    are not pipelines. NGSA supports the development of file upload and 
    subset download capability and suggests this task is within the purview 
    of Working Group 1, not Working Group 4 (as stated by the Commission).
        In their March 4, 1994, filing, Working Groups 1 & 2 provided data 
    sets that would enable users to download subsets of capacity release 
    information and these have been adopted by the Commission. Working 
    Groups 1 & 2 have agreed to report by June 1, 1994 on capacity release 
    uploading and ask the Commission not to prejudge the issue.
        The Commission still is interested in the use of file uploads to 
    facilitate capacity release by eliminating the need for shippers and 
    bidders to go through the process of signing-on to EBBs to submit 
    offers and bids. But the Commission will not require the Working Groups 
    to go forward with this approach until Working Groups 1 & 2 have the 
    opportunity to make their June 1, 1994 filing on this issue.
    
    VI. Common Codes
    
    A. Common Company Codes
    
        In the NOPR, the Commission stated that it expected Working Group 5 
    to finalize its proposal for identifying companies by use of a common 
    code by February 1, 1994. In its March 24, 1994 report, the Working 
    Group stated it has reached consensus on a procedure for assigning 
    company codes. The Working Group states that use of company names alone 
    is unreliable because different abbreviations and aliases would render 
    electronic posting ineffective. The Working Group, therefore, selected 
    the D-U-N-S Number assigned to companies by the Dun & Bradstreet 
    Corporation as the common code number. The Working Group states that 
    Dun & Bradstreet will assign a D-U-N-S number free of charge to any 
    company that can establish that it is a business entity located at a 
    specific address and engaged in a legitimate business. Dun & Bradstreet 
    also allows trading partners to exchange D-U-N-S numbers without charge 
    and will provide the company name and address corresponding to a D-U-N-
    S number to any other party requesting the information for internal 
    use.
        The Working Group proposes that pipelines provide a means by which 
    capacity release participants can provide common code numbers to be 
    used in EDI transactions involving the capacity release data sets. The 
    participants would be solely responsible for obtaining the common code 
    numbers from Dun & Bradstreet and providing them to the pipeline. Those 
    participants that do not have a D-U-N-S number would so inform the 
    pipeline and only their company name would be included in the data 
    sets. The Working Group asserts this process would be self-implementing 
    by the participants and would not require any new institutional 
    arrangements to implement.
        The National Registry submitted comments stating that its 
    understanding of the Working Group 5 agreement was that any company 
    having one or more D-U-N-S numbers would supply at least one valid D-U-
    N-S number to the pipeline. According to the National Registry, the 
    only exception to the requirement is when a company does not have a D-
    U-N-S number. The National Registry further contends that D-U-N-S 
    numbers should be included in any of the data sets when releaser or 
    bidder company name information is supplied. Great Lakes Gas 
    Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) supports the Working 
    Group 5 proposal because parties can acquire D-U-N-S numbers at no 
    charge and the use of D-U-N-S numbers is self-implementing by capacity 
    release participants.
        The Commission already has adopted the revised data sets submitted 
    by Working Groups 1 & 2 which contain fields for display of D-U-N-S 
    numbers. No further Commission action on this proposal seems required 
    at this time. Those using the EBB should provide the pipelines with 
    their D-U-N-S numbers (if they have them) and the pipelines will 
    display those numbers on their EBBs and the downloadable data sets.
    
    B. Common Transaction Point Codes
    
        In Order No. 563, the Commission accepted the consensus approach 
    proposed by Working Group 5 for identifying common pipeline transaction 
    points. Under this approach, a third-party code assignor, the Petroleum 
    Information Corporation (PI-GRID), will prepare a computerized cross-
    reference table correlating pipelines' proprietary codes (as verified 
    and updated by the pipelines) to a common code. Those wanting to use 
    the common code will maintain the cross-reference table on their 
    computers and can convert proprietary pipeline codes to the common 
    code, and vice versa. All transactions with the pipeline will take 
    place using the pipelines' proprietary codes.
        In the communication protocols, the Commission required the 
    pipelines to provide the validated computerized data base by November 
    1, 1994. Pipelines were required to verify the required information 
    about their transaction points to the code assignor. The Commission 
    also required each pipeline to provide the code assignor with 
    sufficient information to enable users to locate the position of each 
    common code point on that pipeline in relation to other points, such as 
    by using geographic coordinates, line numbers, or line markers. In line 
    with the Working Group proposal, the Commission required the pipelines 
    to ensure that users can obtain the common code data base from PI-GRID, 
    and any updates, without charge, except for reasonable distribution and 
    handling fees.
    1. Pipeline Responsibility To Provide the Data Base and Ensure 
    Reasonable Fees
        Columbia Distribution contends the use of the common code 
    translation table is an inefficient method of communicating common 
    codes. Instead, it maintains the Commission should require the 
    pipelines to adopt the common code.
        Several parties object to the Commission's requirement that the 
    pipelines be responsible for ensuring that a validated computerized 
    base is available by November 1, 1994, and that the fees charged by PI-
    GRID are reasonable.34 They contend the Commission's requirements 
    are at odds with the Working Group 5 process in which an industry 
    consortium would be negotiating and signing the contract with PI-GRID. 
    TGPL argues that placing the compliance burden on the pipelines gives 
    PI-GRID unreasonable leverage in negotiating its duties as code 
    assignor. TGPL asserts the Commission should do nothing more than 
    accept the Working Group 5 proposal and require the pipelines to 
    validate their proprietary point information to PI-GRID. KGPC suggests 
    that the Commission set up a process to monitor the provision of 
    services by PI-GRID, rather than placing that burden on the pipelines. 
    AER/MRT argues that instead of placing the burden on the pipelines to 
    ensure a November 1, 1994 implementation date, the Commission should 
    set a compliance date for PI-GRID and, if this deadline is not met, 
    should give the pipelines additional time to comply with the common 
    code requirements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\4KGPC, INGAA, Natural, Tenneco Gas, TGPL.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        TGPL, Tenneco Gas, Natural, and KGPC contend that pipelines should 
    not be responsible for ensuring the reasonableness of fees because they 
    will not be signatories to the contract with PI-GRID and, therefore, 
    can have only an indirect influence on the contracts. Natural further 
    contends the requirement to ensure reasonable fees is unduly vague and 
    establishes no basis for determining when such costs are reasonable. 
    INGAA maintains the industry consortium approach of Working Group 5 
    provides a competitive market mechanism for controlling fees that is 
    superior to imposing a requirement on only one segment of the industry. 
    INGAA points out that the contract with PI-GRID requires that PI-GRID 
    make the codes available at a cost covering only shipping and handling.
        On the other hand, NGSA contends the Commission did not place 
    sufficient requirements on the pipelines to ensure that the November 1, 
    1994 implementation date is met. It suggests the Commission require the 
    pipelines to cooperate with the code assignor by designating, prior to 
    a specified date, a pipeline liaison who will work with the code 
    assignor to establish and validate the transaction points.
        The Commission denies the request by Columbia Distribution to 
    require the pipelines to adopt the common code. Such a requirement goes 
    beyond the consensus reached by the Working Group. The translation 
    table provides users with the benefits of common codes within a 
    reasonable time frame, while, at the same time, pipelines need not 
    incur the burden and expense of making an immediate conversion of their 
    computer systems and operations to accommodate the common codes. 
    However, as pipelines review and update their financial systems to 
    accommodate the new business conditions created by Order No. 636, the 
    Commission fully expects them to incorporate the use of common codes.
        The Commission will clarify its position on pipeline 
    responsibility. The Commission is accepting the code assignor approach 
    put forward by the Working Group. While the Commission recognizes that 
    other parties have been involved in developing the concept and will be 
    signing the contract with PI-GRID, the pipelines are the only 
    jurisdictional entity involved in the transaction. The pipelines can 
    fulfill their obligation by either individually, or through their trade 
    association INGAA, entering into the contract with PI-GRID as developed 
    and presented by the Working Groups. The Commission understands that 
    this contract will specify that the charges for obtaining the common 
    code data base cannot exceed reasonable shipping and handling costs. 
    The Commission, at this point, will leave the monitoring of these costs 
    to the signatories to the contract.
        The Commission has required the pipelines to confirm their 
    proprietary point information to PI-GRID, and the Commission expects no 
    problems in pipeline cooperation with PI-GRID. However, to facilitate 
    PI-GRID's development of the common code data base, each pipeline must 
    designate a liaison to work with PI-GRID and must cooperate with the 
    schedule set up by PI-GRID so that the data base will be available by 
    the November 1, 1994 date.
    2. Point Locator Information
        TGPL and INGAA seek rehearing of the Commission's requirement that 
    pipelines provide PI-GRID with information sufficient to locate 
    pipeline points in relation to other points. They argue the two 
    comments to the NOPR requesting such information do not provide a 
    sufficient basis for the Commission to reject the consensus agreement 
    of Working Group 5 under which pipelines would provide this information 
    only if they have it readily available. They maintain Working Group 5 
    treated this information as optional to avoid imposing additional 
    burdens on pipelines that do not maintain this information in 
    electronic form, while providing useful data when the information is 
    readily available and accessible.
        The Commission denies the request to make point locator information 
    optional. Shippers considering capacity release offers need information 
    about point location to determine whether a particular offer fits their 
    needs. Point locator information provides shippers with the ability to 
    determine electronically whether the transportation path they desire is 
    encapsuled within the transportation path of the posted release. For 
    instance, without such information, the shipper cannot determine 
    whether the delivery point it wants to use is upstream or downstream of 
    the delivery point on the capacity release offer.
        Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that some pipelines may 
    have a large number of receipt points and may not maintain the 
    geographic location of these points in an easily accessible form. The 
    Commission also considers the geographic location of delivery points to 
    be more important to evaluating capacity release offers than receipt 
    point information, because the potential bidder generally needs only to 
    determine whether the path of the capacity release offer extends to its 
    desired delivery point. To ease the burden on those pipelines without 
    easily accessible information, the Commission will require that they 
    confirm to PI-GRID the geographic location of their delivery points and 
    most important receipt points in time to meet the November 1, 1994 
    deadline. Those pipelines would then be responsible for completing the 
    confirmation process for all their receipt points as soon as possible, 
    but no later than May 1, 1995. Pipelines desiring to take advantage of 
    this exception should file a request for an extension of time, 
    explaining their system for maintaining geographic information and 
    justifying their inability to make full compliance by November 1, 1994. 
    Such extensions will be granted only upon good cause shown.35
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\5The Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation can 
    approve such requests pursuant to its delegated authority under 
    section 375.307(d)(4) of the Commission's regulations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        KGPC requests clarification that the Commission's reference to 
    geographic coordinates referred to latitude and longitude. The 
    Commission agrees. Natural states that its paper pooling and storage 
    points used for nominations have no identifiable location on the 
    pipeline and it presumes that for such points, it need only include an 
    identifier showing the points have no geographical location. Pipelines 
    should consult with PI-GRID to determine how to report points without 
    identifiable geographic locations.
        The National Registry states that most pipelines appear to be 
    cooperating with the requirement to provide point locator information 
    in a form that will enable users to locate points in relation to each 
    other. It requests clarification that the Commission's complaint 
    process is the appropriate means of dealing with possible situations in 
    which pipelines do not provide the point locator information in usable 
    form. The Commission does not anticipate that any problems will 
    develop, but, if they do, an attempt should be made to resolve the 
    problem through the Working Group, and, if that fails, the Commission's 
    complaint procedure or enforcement hotline would be appropriate 
    vehicles for pursuing a problem.
    
    3. Establishment of New Receipt and Delivery Points
    
        In the final rule, the Commission adopted the agreement reached by 
    Working Group 5 that information concerning new receipt and delivery 
    points, or modifications to existing points, must be provided to the 
    code assignor 10 days before any business will be transacted using the 
    new or modified point. Natural requests clarification that shippers may 
    utilize a new receipt or delivery point prior to the expiration of the 
    10-day period. It contends situations arise in which a shipper has an 
    immediate need for a new receipt or delivery point and a 10-day delay 
    would pose an unnecessary hardship. It also argues pipelines sometimes 
    need to add a point immediately, for example, to identify a second 
    proprietary code for an existing point or create a paper point for 
    accounting purposes. It suggests that no more than a one day delay in 
    implementing points should be mandated.
        The requirement for a delay in implementing points was intended to 
    ensure that parties using the common code data base would not be at a 
    disadvantage to those using the pipelines' proprietary points as listed 
    on the EBB. Except in emergency situations, pipelines should give PI-
    GRID at least 10 days advance notice of new points or modifications to 
    point information so that those using the common code data base will 
    not be disadvantaged relative to those using the pipeline's EBB.
    
    VII. Additional Standards
    
        Parties had requested that the Commission require an electronic 
    Index of Purchasers, which would disclose information about capacity 
    rights, and require the development of standards for non-capacity 
    release business transactions. The Working Groups were continuing their 
    deliberations in these areas, and, in Order No. 563, the Commission 
    stated that it would await the Working Group reports before making 
    decisions on these issues. The Working Groups have submitted reports on 
    these issues. Several rehearing petitions address these issues as do 
    comments received on the Working Group reports, and the Commission will 
    address these issues below.
    
    A. Index Of Purchasers
    
        The National Registry and Gaslantic support the so-called Tennessee 
    compromise being developed by the Working Groups, but, in the event the 
    compromise falls through, the National Registry requests the Commission 
    to grant rehearing and require the pipelines to implement the limited 
    Index the National Registry proposes. KGPC suggests that, if an 
    electronic Index of Purchasers is required, the Commission should 
    eliminate or modify its current regulations that require pipelines to 
    file similar information with the Commission.
        Working Groups 1 & 2 failed to reach consensus on an Index. One 
    group, consisting of 44 participants drawn from a cross-section of the 
    industry (Group 1),\36\ support a compromise proposal under which the 
    Commission would eliminate the paper reporting requirements relating to 
    firm and interruptible transportation, including the initial and 
    subsequent reports (but not the annual reports or the reports on 
    bypasses) and the requirement to include an Index of Purchasers in a 
    pipeline's tariff. These reports would be replaced by an electronic 
    Index provided in downloadable form consisting of the following nine 
    data elements for each firm transportation and storage shipper: 
    shipper's name, contract identifier, rate schedule, contract start 
    date, contract end date, contract quantity, receipt points (and 
    associated maximum daily quantities (MDQs)), delivery points (and 
    associated MDQs), and conjunctive restrictions, if any.\37\ The 
    information would be updated whenever a new contract for firm capacity 
    was written or a pipeline filed a section 4(e) rate case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \36\Algonquin Gas Transmission, American Iron and Steel 
    Institute, Amoco Production Company, Aquila Energy Marketing 
    Corporation, Aquila Energy Resources Corporation, Bass Enterprises 
    Production Co., BP Exploration Inc., BridgeGas U.S.A. Inc., Chevron, 
    Conoco, East Tennessee Natural Gas, EnerSoft, Fuel Managers 
    Association, Gaslantic Corporation, Georgia Industrial Users Group, 
    Heath Petra Resources, Inc., Independent Oil & Gas Association of 
    Pennsylvania, Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia, 
    KCS Energy Marketing, Inc., Kern River Gas Transmission, Marathon 
    Oil, Midland Marketing Corporation, Midwestern Gas Transmission, 
    Mobil, National Fuel Gas, National Registry of Capacity Rights, 
    Natural Gas Clearinghouse, New York Mercantile Exchange, New York 
    State Electric and Gas, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line, Peoples Gas 
    Systems, Premier Gas Company, Process Gas Consumers Group, Producer-
    Marketer-Transportation Group, Richardson Products Co., Samson 
    Resources Company, Tenneco Gas Marketing Co., Tennessee Gas 
    Pipeline, Texas Eastern Transmission, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
    Line, Trunkline Gas Company, Valero Gas Marketing, L.P., Virginia 
    Power, Washington Gas.
        \37\Conjunctive restrictions were undefined in the proposal. 
    According to the comment by the National Registry, one of the 
    signatories to the agreement, conjunctive restrictions are 
    provisions that operate across multiple points or contracts and may 
    limit a shipper's rights at a particular receipt or delivery point. 
    It gives as an example a shipper with stated rights 2,000 MDQs at 
    three points, but a restriction that it cannot ship more than a 
    total of 2,500 MDQ's from all three points on a single day.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        A smaller number of participants (11) (Group 2)\38\ support a more 
    limited Index which essentially excludes the receipt and delivery point 
    information contained in the first group's proposal. The parties 
    supporting this proposal state that they do not believe any Index is 
    truly necessary, but that, in the spirit of compromise, their proposal 
    would provide a reasonably cost effective Index.\39\ They are concerned 
    that disclosing specific receipt and delivery points potentially could 
    place firm shippers at a disadvantage with respect to future gas 
    purchase options.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \38\American Gas Association, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, 
    Colorado Interstate Gas Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New 
    York, Inc., Enron Interstate Pipelines, Koch Gateway Pipeline 
    Company, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Peoples Gas Light 
    & Coke Company, Public Service Company of Colorado, Southern 
    California Gas Company, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
        \39\They assert that those seeking the Index claim that it will 
    help users locate available firm capacity. But the group argues that 
    an Index is not needed for this purpose because firm capacity 
    holders have every incentive to post their available firm capacity 
    and shippers seeking capacity can post ``want ads'' advertising 
    their need for capacity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Arkla Companies\40\ oppose any Index. They assert the 
    justification given for the Index (that it is needed so capacity buyers 
    can locate available capacity) is unsupported. They argue that this 
    function is satisfied by the firm shipper's incentive to release 
    capacity and potential buyers' ability to place ``want ads'' 
    advertising their interest in acquiring capacity. If firm shippers, not 
    already posting firm capacity, fail to respond to a ``want ad,'' the 
    Arkla Companies maintain the capacity holder is unlikely to be 
    interested in releasing capacity. Further, they assert that small users 
    (who are alleged to be at an information disadvantage to large users) 
    would not likely be sophisticated enough to manipulate the data on the 
    thousands of contracts electronically available through the Index. If 
    the Commission does require an Index, they maintain the Commission 
    should eliminate its Part 284 reporting requirements and permit the 
    pipelines to charge a fee for the use of the Index.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \40\ANR Pipeline Company, Arkla Energy Resources Company, 
    Mississippi River Transmission Corporation, and Minnegasco.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Public notice of these filings was given on March 3, 1994, and the 
    National Registry and PEC Pipeline Group filed comments supporting 
    Group 1's proposal containing the nine data elements. The National 
    Registry contends the information on receipt and delivery point MDQs is 
    needed so the market can be aware of receipt and delivery point 
    capacity that can be acquired through capacity release. It points out 
    that many pipelines allocate greater firm receipt and delivery point 
    capacity than they do mainline capacity and shippers may want to 
    acquire the receipt or delivery point capacity independently of 
    mainline capacity.\41\ In response to those opposing disclosure of 
    receipt and delivery point information, the National Registry contends 
    that capacity information should not be considered proprietary. It also 
    argues that disclosure of receipt points is unlikely to reveal a 
    purchaser's gas purchase strategy, since it does not disclose pricing, 
    duration, or delivery conditions and, in most cases, even the supplier 
    could not be divined from the information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \41\For example, it asserts that a replacement shipper (having 
    obtained a package of mainline capacity) and using a particular 
    point as an alternate point may want to acquire firm rights at that 
    point from another shipper.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The PEC Pipeline Group supports the Group 1 proposal because this 
    option actually will reduce costs by eliminating the duplicate 
    reporting requirements for firm transportation contracts. It points out 
    that the information required by the Index is essentially the same as 
    is now required to be filed in the initial and subsequent reports under 
    Part 284, so no additional costs for gathering the information are 
    created by the proposal.
        The Commission finds that the Group 1, more inclusive, proposal has 
    significant merit, and the Commission is very interested in pursuing 
    this proposal further. The proposal provides useful information to the 
    market about capacity, while also setting the stage for reducing filing 
    burdens on pipelines and streamlining the Commission's reporting 
    requirements. The Group 2, more limited, proposal is not as attractive 
    because, without receipt and delivery point information, it would not 
    reduce filing burdens. Moreover, information on receipt and delivery 
    points would be of value to those seeking releasable capacity and 
    disclosure of such capacity information is not confidential, since it 
    presently is disclosed publicly through the initial and subsequent 
    reports.
        The Commission, however, is unsure about some details of the 
    proposal. For example, as framed, it would eliminate the initial and 
    subsequent reports for firm and interruptible transportation, but would 
    provide only information about firm transportation in the electronic 
    Index. The proposed Index would be updated only when a new contract was 
    written or upon the filing of a section 4 rate case, whereas the 
    subsequent reports now must be filed whenever a material change in the 
    contract occurs. The proposal states that the Index would be available 
    in downloadable form, but does not specify the format for the download 
    (EDI or another format) nor whether shippers will have access to the 
    information in other forms. In addition, the proposal does not discuss 
    how the information will be archived in the event access to historical 
    data is needed. The Commission staff and the Working Group, therefore, 
    should work to develop a final proposal to be provided to the 
    Commission by September 30, 1994.
    
    B. Business Practice Standards
    
        In Order No. 563, the Commission concluded that standardization of 
    business transactions unrelated to capacity release should be the next 
    step in the standardization process. Working Group 3 had been 
    considering such standards and had identified 33 high priority items, 
    of which ten were considered most critical.\42\ The Commission found 
    that standardization of these ten, or most of them, provided a good 
    departure point for this effort. The Commission stated that the Working 
    Group should propose an appropriate implementation schedule for the ten 
    identified data elements. The Working Group also was to continue its 
    efforts to identify which of the remaining 23 high priority data 
    elements, as well as any others, require standardization and propose a 
    schedule for implementation of standards for these elements as well.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \42\The ten elements were: timely flowing volume; timely volume 
    allocation reports; predetermined allocations and shipper ranking; 
    imbalance status; customer scheduled receipts and deliveries; 
    customer specific curtailment/interruption information; customer 
    specific operational flow orders; daily nominated volume 
    acknowledgement; customer penalty status; and input and modify gas 
    nominations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        PEC Pipeline Group contends the Commission should not be issuing 
    mandatory standards for non-capacity release transactions. It asserts 
    mandatory standards for such transactions would be inconsistent with 
    the Commission's position in restructuring orders that Order No. 636 
    required only the posting of information related to available capacity 
    and not information on nominations, scheduling, and gas flow. PEC 
    Pipeline Group and Tenneco Gas assert that implementation of non-
    capacity release standards should be determined by the market, not 
    regulation. Tenneco Gas also states that the industry is working on 
    standardization related to nominations and that these standards should 
    be reviewed first before additional standardization is attempted. 
    Natural seeks clarification that the Commission is not prejudging or 
    dictating the items to be standardized, but is relying on Working Group 
    3 to make this determination.
        On the other side, NGC and NGSA contend the Working Groups are 
    deadlocked on whether pipelines should be required to implement the 
    high priority data elements. They contend the Commission should direct 
    the pipelines, in conjunction with Working Group 3, to develop an 
    implementation schedule for all 33 high priority data elements. NGC 
    suggests that the schedule for the ten high priority items should be 
    submitted by April 1, 1994 and for the remaining 23 by June 1, 1994.
        On March 25, 1994, Working Group 3 filed a consensus agreement 
    regarding the development of standards for non-capacity release 
    business transactions. They anticipate completion of 12 upload and 
    download data sets relating to confirmations and nominations by June 1, 
    1994.43 At the time of the filing, 55 trading partners, including 
    a number of pipelines, have committed to begin implementation of these 
    data sets in June 1994, with pilot testing by December 31, 1994. 
    Several pipelines and their trading partners are expected to be in full 
    implementation by January 1995. The Working Group encourages other 
    industry participants that are EDI capable to support these data sets 
    by September 1995.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\3These data sets deal with the nomination, the request to 
    confirm, the confirmation, and the scheduled volumes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Working Group 3 anticipates it will complete its consideration of 
    the other high priority data sets by January 1, 1995, with development 
    of data sets by January 1, 1996 and implementation within the 6 month 
    period from January to June, 1996. The Group states this schedule may 
    be affected by the Group's analysis of the transactions involved and 
    its evaluation of the use of EDI for capacity release and for 
    nominations and confirmations.
        The consensus of Working Group 3 was that significant and 
    sufficient progress can be made in developing and implementing these 
    standards without the Commission mandating implementation. It, 
    therefore, recommends that the Commission accept the consensus 
    agreement without mandating compliance with the data sets by the 
    pipelines.44 The Working Group commits to making quarterly 
    progress reports, starting July 1, 1994, which will be made available 
    to the Commission and other interested parties.45
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\4If parties are dissatisfied with progress under the 
    voluntary agreement, they have reserved the right to request 
    Commission action at a later time.
        \4\5Great Lakes filed a comment supporting the Working Group 3 
    proposal and stated that it will be adding its name to the list of 
    trading partners intent on meeting the time table set out by the 
    Working Group.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Although the Commission began the standardization process with 
    capacity release, the Commission recognizes that the process now needs 
    to be expanded to include other business practices in order to 
    facilitate the movement of gas across multiple pipelines. In addition 
    to standards governing electronic communication, such standards could 
    include other business practices, such as standardization of gas days 
    and nomination times to help shippers schedule deliveries across 
    multiple pipelines. The Working Group's use of a pilot program, 
    implemented as quickly as possible, appears to be a worthwhile approach 
    for assessing the value of proposed standards and approaches, so that 
    lessons learned can be applied to other areas and the process can move 
    forward quickly.
        At this point, the Commission will honor the consensus agreement of 
    Working Group 3 and allow the industry to proceed in developing such 
    standards, without Commission mandate. The Commission applauds the 
    progress of the industry to date and hopes that a consensus can be 
    achieved on implementing the nomination/confirmation standards on 
    schedule as well as implementing the additional proposed standards by 
    the targeted dates if not earlier. The Commission also recognizes that 
    other efforts are underway in the industry to standardize business 
    practices. The Working Group should keep abreast of these developments 
    and coordinate these efforts. The Commission staff will continue to 
    actively monitor the Working Group's progress in developing these 
    standards. Depending on the progress made by the industry in this 
    endeavor, the Commission will evaluate the need for mandating 
    compliance with such standards either in this docket or in another 
    appropriate forum.
    
    VIII. Recovery Of EBB Costs
    
        In Order No. 563, the Commission responded to comments addressing 
    the mechanism for recovering the costs of standardization. As a general 
    matter, the Commission stated that its policy of permitting recovery of 
    fixed costs through a reservation charge and variable costs through a 
    usage charge was appropriate for the basic EBB service, which would 
    include the downloadable data sets and communication protocols of this 
    rule. The Commission stated that these services should be included in 
    the basic EBB package because they were needed to provide a viable 
    capacity release market and would provide system-wide benefits to all 
    users. For enhancements to the basic EBB package, the Commission stated 
    it was open to cost recovery approaches that would recover fixed costs 
    from the limited number of users deriving benefit from the service.
        KGPC states that EBB implementation and development costs should be 
    recovered as fixed costs. Columbia Distribution and UDC/AGD, on the 
    other hand, object to the Commission's statement that the fixed costs 
    of the basic EBB package should be recovered through reservation 
    charges. They assert the Commission's statement is at odds with its 
    statement in the NOPR that it would be open to cost recovery methods 
    that would spread costs across all those benefitting from the 
    standards. Edison similarly contends that ``data aggregators'' 
    (companies which are not shippers on pipelines, but which will be 
    downloading data from multiple EBBs to provide electronic services) 
    should pay their share of the costs for additional services provided at 
    their request. All three contend the Commission should adopt a policy 
    on cost recovery under which the costs would be equitably shared among 
    all users of EBBs with the precise method of cost allocation determined 
    in section 4 rate proceedings.
        UDC/AGD also request clarification of the criteria the Commission 
    will use to determine which enhancements are not to be included in the 
    basic EBB package. They state, for example, that some of the non-
    capacity release standards which the Working Groups are developing may 
    not be of general benefit. KGPC suggests that any standards imposed by 
    the Commission should be treated as part of the standard EBB service.
        Columbia Distribution and UDC/AGD further assert the Commission's 
    statement on cost recovery could interfere with the development of 
    alternative cost recovery approaches by the Working Groups, and UDC/AGD 
    contend that if the Commission does not revisit this issue, it should, 
    at least, refer the issue to the Working Groups for further 
    consideration. In contrast, NGSA contends that the method of cost 
    recovery is a policy issue outside the scope of this proceeding and 
    that the Working Groups should not be asked to resolve this issue since 
    they are set up to deal with technical issues.
        NGC requests clarification that all cost recovery related to EBBs 
    will take place in full section 4 rate cases so that savings as well as 
    costs can be taken into account. NGC further argues that variable costs 
    should not be recovered through usage charges because a usage charge 
    ignores the system-wide benefits of EBBs and other forms of electronic 
    nominations. If the Commission does permit a separate charge for EBB 
    use, NGC contends the Commission should not permit EDI users to be 
    singled out for separate charges. NGC maintains that some in the 
    industry have argued for a separate charge for EDI users because not 
    all users find EDI suitable. NGC responds that some users find on-line 
    EBBs equally unsuitable.
        As part of the Working Groups 1 & 2 report, position papers were 
    filed reiterating the points made above. One group46 contends the 
    interminable debate over the cost issue is impeding the ability of the 
    Working Groups to complete their work.47 They urge the Commission 
    to resolve this issue by stating that the cost issue should be left to 
    section 4 proceedings, and not be considered by the Working Groups.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\6American Iron & Steel Institute, Amoco Production Company, 
    Chevron U.S.A. Production Company, Conoco Inc., Enron Gas Services, 
    Gaslantic Corporation, GPM Gas Corporation, Marathon Oil Company, 
    Natural Gas Clearinghouse, Phillips Petroleum Company, Phillips Gas 
    Marketing Company, Process Gas Consumers, Texaco Gas Marketing Inc., 
    Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc., Virginia Power Company.
        \4\7They assert some parties have held up consensus on further 
    standardization until the group agrees to a cost allocation 
    statement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Another group48 supports an equitable sharing of costs by all 
    EBB users. They assert that if firm capacity holders are required to 
    pay all EBB costs through a reservation charge, the firm holders will 
    be subsidizing other users of the system. They further assert that 
    having to absorb all EBB costs will place firm users at a competitive 
    disadvantage compared with brokers and marketers that can obtain the 
    EBB services at no cost. This group asserts the Commission state that 
    its policy is to equitably share costs, with the mechanics of the cost 
    sharing approach to be developed in section 4 cases, in which the 
    parties could consider a number of options, such as annual user fees or 
    on-line usage charges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\8Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Brooklyn Union Gas 
    Company, The Columbia Distribution Companies, Consolidated Edison of 
    New York, New York State Electric & Gas Company, Southern California 
    Gas Company, United Distribution Companies, Washington Gas Light 
    Company, American Public Gas Association, Associated Gas 
    Distributors, and New England Gas Distributor Group.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission will clarify its position on cost recovery. As 
    provided in Order No. 636, the recovery of all EBB costs must take 
    place in a full section 4 rate filing.49 Parties are free in these 
    proceedings to propose alternative methods of cost recovery.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\9Order No. 636, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,460; 
    Order No. 636-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,664.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Commission recognizes that those supporting cost sharing raise 
    a legitimate concern that users should be responsible for paying the 
    costs that their use imposes on the system. On the other hand, in Order 
    No. 636-A, the Commission rejected a user fee approach to EBB cost 
    recovery in favor of a reservation charge approach out of concern about 
    potential consequences of user fees. The Commission intended EBBs to 
    provide for wide dispersion of information about capacity availability 
    as well as information concerning market and system operational 
    information. In fact, to further the secondary capacity market, the 
    Commission has sought to remove impediments to the development of 
    services by third parties that would aggregate information from 
    multiple pipeline EBBs, thereby improving access to information.50 
    The Commission, therefore, rejected user fees for EBBs because high 
    user fees can work to the disadvantage of firm shippers by discouraging 
    the use of EBBs for capacity release transactions and by providing 
    advantages to the pipelines' sale of interruptible transportation at 
    the expense of capacity release.51 Without more detail about how 
    cost sharing would work, the Commission cannot endorse a policy of 
    equitable cost sharing at this point. The Commission, however, is not 
    ruling out adoption of a fully supported and justified proposal of this 
    nature. At this point, these issues are best examined in the context of 
    an individual rate case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \50\Northwest Pipeline Corporation, 63 FERC 61,124 (1993), 
    aff'd, 65 FERC 61,007 (1993).
        \5\1See Order No. 636-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 
    30,563-64 (rejecting user charges for EBB to eliminate advantages 
    for pipelines' interruptible service); ANR Pipeline Company, 66 FERC 
    61,335 (1994) (rejecting $50 usage charge).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Similarly, the Commission does not have sufficient basis to 
    establish a generic standard for cost recovery for enhancements to the 
    basic EBB package. All the standards the Commission has adopted are of 
    sufficient system-wide benefit to be included in the basic EBB package. 
    Also, as discussed above, the Commission will not be mandating 
    implementation of the non-capacity release standards proposed by 
    Working Group 3 at this time. The Working Group is proposing a pilot 
    program to evaluate its efforts, so an attempt to develop a generic 
    cost recovery approach for these standards is premature. At this point, 
    cost recovery for implementation of the standards is best addressed in 
    individual rate cases.
        The Commission agrees with NGSA that cost recovery is a policy 
    issue that need not be resolved by the Working Groups, and the Working 
    Groups should not permit debates over cost recovery to side-track them 
    from their work on developing standards. If parties have developed 
    concrete proposals for alternate methods of cost recovery for 
    particular standards, they can submit the proposals in comments on the 
    Working Group reports or address the issue in individual section 4 
    cases in which EBB cost recovery is an issue.
    
    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284
    
        Continental shelf, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements.
    
        In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission denies rehearing 
    in part, grants rehearing in part, and clarifies Order No. 563 as 
    described above.
    
        By the Commission.
    Lois D. Cashell,
    Secretary.
        Note: This Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal 
    Regulations.
    
    Appendix A--Docket No. RM93-4-001--Parties Filing Requests for Rehearing
                               and Clarification                            
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Filer                             Abbreviation           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado     ANR/CIG.                          
     Interstate Gas Company.                                                
    Arkla Energy Resources Company and    AER/MRT.                          
     Mississippi River Transmission                                         
     Corporation.                                                           
    Columbia Gas Distribution             Columbia Distribution.            
     Companies\52\.                                                         
    Gaslantic Corporation...............  Gaslantic.                        
    Interstate Natural Gas Association    INGAA.                            
     of America.                                                            
    Kern River Gas Transmission Company.  Kern River.                       
    Koch Gateway Pipeline Company.......  KGPC.                             
    National Registry of Capacity Rights  National Registry.                
    Natural Gas Pipeline Company of       Natural.                          
     America.                                                               
    Tenneco Gas.........................  Tenneco Gas.                      
    Texas Eastern Transmission            PEC Pipeline Group.               
     Corporation, Panhandle Eastern Pipe                                    
     Line Company, Trunkline Gas                                            
     Company, and Algonquin Gas                                             
     Transmission Company.                                                  
    Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line        TGPL.                             
     Corporation.                                                           
    United Distribution Companies and     UDC/AGD.                          
     Associated Gas Distributors.                                           
    Southern California Edison Company..  Edison.                           
    Natural Gas Supply Association......  NGSA.                             
    Texaco Gas Marketing, Inc...........  TGMI.                             
    Enron Interstate Pipelines (Northern  Enron.                            
     Natural Gas Company, Transwestern                                      
     Pipeline Company, and Florida Gas                                      
     Transmission Company).                                                 
    Natural Gas Clearinghouse...........  NGC.                              
    Working Groups 1 & 2................  Working groups 1 and 2.           
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc., Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.,     
      Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc., and   
      Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc.                                       
    
    [FR Doc. 94-10920 Filed 5-5-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/06/1994
Department:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Final rule; order on rehearing.
Document Number:
94-10920
Dates:
The implementation date for the regulations published on January 5, 1994 (59 FR 516) is June 1, 1994, except when specified otherwise.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: May 6, 1994, Docket No. RM93-4-001
CFR: (1)
18 CFR 284