[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 516-531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-45]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 284
[Docket No. RM93-4-000; Order No. 563]
Standards For Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under Part 284
of the Commission's Regulations
Issued December 23, 1993.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
issuing a final rule adopting regulations to standardize the content
of, and procedures for accessing, information relevant to the
availability of service on interstate pipelines. The Commission's
standards will require pipelines to make this information available on
Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBBs) and through downloadable files and
will detail procedures and protocols for EBB operation and file
transfers.
DATES: February 4, 1994. Pipelines must implement the requirements of
this rule by June 1, 1994, except where the procedures and protocols
specify 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. Reporting Requirements
III. Background
IV. Summary of the Final Rule
V. Discussion of the Proposed Regulation
A. Need For A Flexible Mechanism To Make Revisions To The
Standards And Protocols
B. Exemptions For Small Pipelines
C. Implementation Date
D. Modifications To The Regulatory Provisions
VI. Discussion of Items Included in the Standardized Data Sets and
Communications Protocols
A. Standardized Data Sets
1. Operation of the Data Sets
2. Date and Time Stamps
3. Operationally Available Capacity
4. Disclosure of Minimum Conditions
B. Communication Protocols
1. Electronic Data Interchange
a. ASC X12
b. ASCII Downloads
2. Protocols For Communications Software and Hardware, Access
Requirements, and Log-On Procedures
C. Common Codes
1. Introduction
2. The Proposal
3. Comments on the Working Group Filing
4. Commission Adoption of the Working Group Proposal
VII. Issues not Addressed in the Standardized Data Sets and
Communication Protocols
A. Proposed Additions To The Standardized Data Sets
1. Index of Purchasers
2. Nominations for Firm and Interruptible Capacity
B. Communication Protocols For Uploading Files and Downloading
Subsets Of Files
C. Standardization Of Non-Capacity Release Business Transactions
D. Policy Issues
1. Costs of Standardization
2. Liability
3. Non-Price Considerations
E. Gas Industry Standards Board
VIII. Environmental Analysis
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
X. Information Collection Requirement
XI. Effective Date
Regulatory Text
Appendix A--Parties Filing Comments On The Notice Of Proposed
Rulemaking
I. Introduction
In Order No. 636,1 the Commission created a new operating
environment for interstate pipelines and shippers on those pipelines by
requiring pipelines to unbundle the sale of gas from the transportation
of that gas and by introducing a mechanism permitting shippers to trade
unneeded capacity through Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBBs) maintained
by the pipelines. Because shippers will now be transporting gas over
multiple pipelines, the Commission concluded that the development of
uniform standards covering the content of, and methods for accessing,
information relating to transportation would improve the efficiency of
gas movement across the interstate pipeline grid. To begin the process
of developing the needed standards, the Commission directed its staff
to convene a series of informal conferences with all facets of the gas
industry to consider standards relating to capacity allocation. As a
result of these conferences, the industry reached consensus agreements
on the information about available capacity that should be included on
EBBs and the procedures and protocols for making that information
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\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 (August 12,
1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 30,950 (August 3, 1992),
order on reh'g, Order No. 636-B, 57 FR 57911 (Dec. 8, 1992), 61 FERC
61,272 (1992), appeal pending sub nom., Atlanta Gas Light Co. and
Chattanooga Gas Co. v. FERC, No. 92-8782 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is adopting a final rule reflecting the consensus
agreements reached by the industry. The rule amends the Commission's
open access regulations by requiring pipelines to provide standardized
information about the availability of service on their systems. This
information will be provided both on the pipelines' EBBs and through
files which users can download from the pipelines' computers to their
own computers. The rule further requires pipelines to provide this
information according to standardized procedures and protocols, which
will be maintained in a document entitled ``Standardized Data Sets and
Communication Protocols'' that can be obtained at the Commission.
Pipelines must implement the requirements of this rule by June 1, 1994.
The Commission also recognizes the standards and protocols it is
adopting will need to be updated as more experience with capacity
release and the transportation environment under Order No. 636 is
obtained. The Commission, therefore, is proposing to continue the
industry conferences to consider and propose modifications when needed.
II. Reporting Requirements
The Commission estimates the public burden for the information
requirement under this final rule--including the one-time start-up
burden related to pipeline EBBs--will average 6,770 hours per company.
The burden estimate includes the time required to review and implement
the standards, develop the necessary software, search existing data
sources, gather and maintain the data needed, create/validate common
and proprietary codes/information and complete and review the
information. The information/data elements required to be maintained on
pipeline EBBs will be under a new information requirement, FERC-549(B),
Gas Pipeline Rates: Capacity Release Information. The annual burden
associated with the new FERC-549(B) information requirement will be
528,060 hours based on the estimated initial EBB development burden and
daily EBB informational updates by an anticipated 78 pipeline
respondents.
Included in the annual burden estimate are 40,560 hours (520 hours
per company) attributable to the creation of common/proprietary codes
to identify pipelines and common transaction points. The codification
requirements were not part of the burden estimates contained in the
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) issued July 29, 1993.
Because the final rule contains new information and EBB
requirements, many of which are one-time start-up activities, it is
anticipated that FERC-549(B) burden will be reduced by 2,250 hours per
respondent (for a total reduction of 175,500 hours for all respondents)
the year following the implementation of the EBB systems.
Arkla Energy Resources Company and Mississippi River Transmission
Corporation state that providing comments on the burden estimate in the
NOPR is difficult until final resolution of EBB issues. Interstate
Natural Gas Association of American states the burden estimate in the
NOPR is reasonable for the items included in the proposed rule, but
would be too low if additional items, such as common codes are
included. No party has submitted contrary data on a revised burden
estimate for the requirements proposed in the NOPR. The only
significant change from the NOPR is the requirement to create a common
code data base and the Commission has revised its estimate to include
the additional burden of this effort. Accordingly, the Commission finds
its burden estimates reasonable.
Interested persons may send comments regarding these burden
estimates or any other aspect of this information requirement,
including suggestions for reductions of the burden, to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 941 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Information Services
Division, (202) 208-1415, FAX (202) 208-2425]; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission].
III. Background
In Order No. 636, 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.2 The Commission recognized 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.3 On February 26, 1993, the Commission
held a technical conference to examine the industry's efforts in
standardizing information content and communication procedures. The
participants at the conference expressed a willingness to establish a
broad industry-wide working group to reach consensus on standards
governing capacity release transactions. The Commission subsequently
established informal conferences with Commission staff and all
interested members of the gas industry to facilitate the development of
consensus standards.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\18 CFR 284.8(b)(3)(4), 284.9(3)(4).
\3\Order No. 636-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,549.
\4\Notice Of Informal Conferences (March 10, 1993), 54 FR 14530
(Mar. 18, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A broad spectrum of firms and organizations participated in these
Working Groups, including representatives from the major segments of
the gas industry and other interested parties, such as computer and
software firms. The participants at the conferences divided their
efforts into five working groups covering different areas of
standardization and, on July 1 and July 6, 1993, the Working Groups
submitted reports on their deliberations. Working Groups 1 and 2
reached consensus on proposed standardized data sets setting forth the
information concerning available capacity. Working Group 4 agreed on a
set of communication protocols governing the dissemination of the
information. Working Group 5 proposed methods for developing codes to
identify companies and common transaction points, but had not finalized
standards in these areas. Working Group 3 reported on its progress in
considering standards relating to business practices other than
capacity release, but did not propose any standards. The Working Group
reports included minority positions on several items. The Commission
also provided an additional period for the public to comment on the
Working Group proposals.
On July 29, 1993, the Commission issued a Notice Of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to adopt standards reflecting the consensus
agreements reached by the industry working groups.5 The NOPR also
provided for the continuation of the Working Groups and set a number of
items for further consideration, with reports generally due by February
1, 1994.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, 58 FR 41647 (Aug. 5, 1993), IV
FERC Stats. & Regs. Proposed Regulations 32,500 (July 29, 1993).
\6\Working Group 5 was given an October 1, 1993 report date for
its proposal dealing with common transaction point codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forty comments were received on the NOPR.7 In addition, on
October 12, 1993, Working Group 5 filed its report containing a
finalized proposal for providing common transaction point codes, and on
November 3, 1993, Working Groups 1 and 2 filed revisions to the
proposed capacity availability data sets. The Commission noticed both
filings and provided the industry with an opportunity to submit
comments on the filings and to discuss them at an informal
conference.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\The commenters, and the abbreviations used for each, are
listed in Appendix A. Con Edison and PSCW filed comments late. The
Commission will consider these comments.
\8\AER/MRT, IPAA, Gaslantic, National Registry, NYMEX/EnerSoft,
Process Gas Consumers Group, and Transco submitted comments on the
common code proposal. ANR submitted comments on the revised data
sets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary of the Final Rule
The final rule adopts the regulation and standards as proposed in
the NOPR, with only slight modifications. The final rule adopts
Sec. 284.8(b)(5) requiring pipelines to provide standardized
information relevant to the availability of service on their systems.
Under the rule, pipelines must provide the standardized information on
their EBBs and 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 would be available from the Commission's Public
Reference and Files Maintenance Branch.9 Because the standardized
information includes information relevant to the availability of
interruptible transportation, the rule also revises Sec. 284.9(b)(4),
which governs interruptible transportation, to cross-reference the
standardization requirements in Sec. 284.8(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\This document will not be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the standardized data sets set forth the information
concerning capacity availability that pipelines must provide both on
their on-line EBBs and through downloadable files.10 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) capacity, and system-wide notices. The protocols
establish principles and procedures relating to the operation of
pipeline EBBs and the provision of downloadable files to users. Under
these protocols, pipelines will provide for file downloads in two
formats: one that complies with standards for Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI) promulgated by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12 and a second
format that does not comply with ASC X12, but which provides files in
standard flat ASCII format.11 The Commission is changing the
implementation of the regulation from the April 1, 1994 date proposed
in the NOPR to June 1, 1994, unless the standards and protocols specify
a different compliance date.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\0On-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 can use its own internal computer programs
to manipulate the data.
\1\1ASCII refers to the American Standard Code for Information
Interchange, a code for character representation. The Commission
recognizes the ASC X12 files also use ASCII characters. The
Commission is using the term ASCII download to refer to standard
flat file downloads that do not necessarily meet the requirements of
the ASC X12 standards.
\1\2The June 1, 1994 date will not apply to the requirement that
pipelines provide a common code system. The date for implementation
of this requirement is November 1, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments addressed issues relating to the proposed regulation,
the standards and protocols that were proposed for inclusion in the
Standardized Data Sets and Communication Protocols, and the items which
the Commission proposed not to include in the data sets and protocols.
The Commission will address the issues raised in each area in turn.
V. Discussion of the Proposed Regulation
A. Need for a Flexible Mechanism To Make Revisions to the Standards and
Protocols
In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to proceed through rulemaking,
rather than a policy statement, finding that the benefits of
standardization can be achieved only when all pipelines provide the
same information through the same procedures. The Commission concluded
a rulemaking was the proper approach to issuing mandatory requirements.
Several commenters support the Commission's issuance of a rule to
ensure full compliance, but urge the Commission to commit itself to a
process for revising the requirements.13 They maintain that once
the industry obtains experience with capacity release, revisions may be
needed. Natural supports the use of notice and comment rulemaking, but
it requests clarification that, even though the referenced document of
standards and protocols is not contained in the Code of Federal
Regulations, any modifications to these standards or protocols will be
made through rulemaking procedures. It maintains changes to this
document could result in significant administrative burdens and costs
and, therefore, contends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
requires that such changes be made only through a notice and comment
rulemaking. O&R and Williston urge the Commission to proceed using a
policy statement to ensure the utmost flexibility for modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\3Power Generators, AGA, Columbia Distribution, Destec Energy,
FMA, and UDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission adheres to its determination to proceed through
rulemaking to ensure the uniformity standardization requires.
Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with the commenters that revisions
and modifications to the standards and protocols will need to be made
on a regular basis as the industry obtains more experience with
capacity release transactions and with the changed operating
environment created by Order No. 636. For example, in the two months
after issuance of the NOPR, Working Groups 1 and 2 already have
proposed revisions to the standardized data sets to ensure that they
function effectively and to clarify a number of items. The Commission
proposes to continue the informal conferences and the Working Groups as
the best means for monitoring the performance of the standards and
proposing needed changes.
To facilitate the Commission's ability to respond to the need for
changes, it adopted only a general regulation requiring the pipelines
to standardize their provision of capacity information, while the
standards and protocols themselves were to be provided in a separate
document not contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. The
Commission is committed to making needed modifications and revisions to
the standards and protocols as quickly as possible. Determining the
appropriate mechanism for making such changes is premature, because the
method should vary depending on the type of change contemplated;
maintenance of the standards to correct problems or improve their
functioning should be handled differently than significant substantive
changes in the means of providing the information.
In making changes to the data sets and protocols, the Commission
intends to follow the APA and provide notice and an opportunity for
comment, just as it has in the past with respect to proposed changes by
the Working Groups. For example, when Working Groups 1 and 2 submitted
their recent set of revisions, the Commission noticed the filing and
provided an opportunity for written comments as well as for
consideration of the revisions at one of the Commission's EBB
conferences.
Although the Commission is issuing the current data sets along with
this rule, the Commission realizes that as pipelines begin the process
of correlating the downloadable data sets with the information provided
by offerors and bidders through their on-line EBBs, difficulties with
the data sets may be identified. All pipelines immediately must begin
the correlation process, so they can report any significant
difficulties to Working Groups 1 and 2. The Commission is committed to
implementing the data sets by June 1, 1994, and Working Groups 1 and 2,
therefore, should ensure that they provide the Commission with any
additional changes they believe are essential in sufficient time to
permit implementation of the data sets, including ASC X12
downloadability, by that date. The Commission recognizes that the data
sets may not be perfect when implemented, but, as discussed above, the
Commission is committed to a process for revising the data sets on a
regular basis after implementation.
B. Exemptions for Small Pipelines
Sabine maintains small pipelines may not be able to comply with the
requirements outlined in the NOPR. It does not suggest a blanket
exemption for small pipelines, but instead recommends they be afforded
an opportunity to demonstrate that the costs of implementing the
standards would outweigh the benefits of compliance.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\4It points out the Commission exempted it from compliance
with the interactive EBB requirement in its restructuring order.
Sabine Pipe Line Company, 63 FERC 61,010 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes small pipeline compliance with some of
the requirements of the standards and protocols may not be cost
justified or essential to obtain the benefits the Commission sought to
achieve through standardization. The Commission cannot make a generic
determination of the particular standards and protocols with which
small pipelines should not have to comply; compliance with some of the
standards may not involve as much added cost as compliance with others
and partial compliance may still be of benefit to users.15 Small
pipelines desiring an exemption should file a petition under Rule 207
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure listing the
specific requirements for which they seek exemption and explaining why
the exemption is justified.16 Users will then be given an
opportunity to comment on the proposed application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\5For example, provision of the data contained in the
standardized data sets may not be unduly costly and would permit
users to obtain the same information from all pipelines.
\1\618 CFR 385.207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Implementation Date
In the NOPR, the Commission proposed an April 1, 1994
implementation date, finding this date would provide pipelines with
sufficient time to program their computers to incorporate the changes
required and would permit final testing of the system during the off-
peak summer season. Many commenters support the April 1, 1994
implementation date, some suggesting no extension be given.\17\ Peoples
Gas, et al., and UDC state this date should not result in delay in
implementing the on-line EBBs already required by Order No. 636. Some
commenters contend the April 1, 1994 date is sufficient for the items
included in the NOPR, but would not give sufficient time for
implementation of additional requirements resulting from the Working
Groups' February 1, 1994 reports on those items which the Commission
set for further consideration.\18\ Other commenters contend the April
1, 1994 date is too ambitious for all items and assert the Commission
should not set an interim date, but should require full implementation
by the fall of 1994.\19\ AER/MRT contends an April 1, 1994
implementation date for the ASC X12 requirement, in particular, is
unreasonably ambitious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Power Generators, Con Edison, WEV, Destec Energy, NGSA,
NYMEX/EnerSoft, O&R, Peoples Gas, et al., UDC, Process Gas Consumers
Group (noting that capacity release transactions may be heaviest in
the off-season), Transco (if development of ASC X12 not unduly
delayed).
\18\INGAA, Natural.
\19\AER/MRT, Columbia Gas, Enron, KGPL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission will agree to delay the implementation date to June
1, 1994, to allow the Working Groups and the pipelines to make final
revisions that will improve the functioning of the EBBs and the
downloadable data sets. But, given this extension, the Commission
expects the pipelines to have an operational set of standards fully
implemented by June 1, 1994. At the same time, the June 1, 1994 date
will permit capacity release transactions, which may be significant in
the off-peak season, to benefit from the standards. The June 1, 1994
date applies to the implementation of EDI, but not to the
implementation of common codes, as discussed later.\20\ The Commission
clarifies that this date applies only to the items included in this
rule, not to further items resulting from the February 1, 1994 reports.
The June 1, 1994 date also does not delay pipelines' compliance with
the EBB requirements of Order No. 636; pipelines must comply with these
requirements by the date specified in their restructuring orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\See text accompanying notes 36 and 51, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 1 date is not an interim date, but the final date for
compliance with these requirements. The reference in the NOPR to final
testing during the off-peak season meant only that full scale operation
would operate as the final check to uncover lacunae in operation not
detected during routine small scale (or beta) testing of the
system.\21\ As stated earlier, the Commission expects full
implementation of the data sets and communication protocols by no later
than the June 1, 1994 date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\By beginning full-scale operation during the summer, the
standards will be in effect during the period when capacity release
transactions may be significant, but, at the same time, any final
problems with the system can be resolved when obtaining gas supplies
is not as crucial as during the peak winter heating season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williston Basin asserts the February 1, 1994 date for the Working
Group reports is premature since the industry will not have sufficient
experience with capacity release by then to make additional
modifications. The Commission is not persuaded to change the February 1
date for the Working Group reports. These reports are intended to cover
the items on which the parties did not have the time to reach consensus
in time for their July reports, but which the Commission found were
susceptible to resolution given more time. As discussed earlier, the
Commission is committed to updating these standards when necessary in
light of experience. The timing of additional meetings or reports to
consider further revisions are better made at a later point.
D. Modifications to the Regulatory Provisions
NGSA and Process Gas Consumers Group suggest the rule should be
revised to require each pipeline to submit a compliance filing
specifying in its tariff the details of how it will supply the services
required by the rule. UDC suggests the imposition of reporting
requirements to permit the Commission and the public to monitor the
initial operation of EBBs.
The Commission perceives no need at this point for requiring
compliance filings by pipelines or the submission of periodic reports.
The requirements of the rule are straight-forward. The communication
protocols require pipelines to provide users with scripts detailing the
procedures for accessing (logging-on to) the pipelines' computer
systems, and providing further detail through tariff filings seems
unnecessary. Monitoring of the system can be better accomplished
through Commission oversight of pipelines' compliance by accessing
their EBBs and through the use of industry conferences than through
tariff filings or inflexible periodic reporting requirements.
Process Gas Consumers Group suggests the deletion of the phrase
``on its Electronic Bulletin Board'' from the opening clause of the
rule. It contends this phrase suggests the rule may not cover EDI
access to data, may not apply to pipelines using third-party vendors to
provide EBB services, and appears to require pipelines to provide
information about accessing their EBB solely through their EBB, thereby
creating a Catch-22 in which shippers can obtain information on how to
access a pipeline's EBB only by knowing how to access the EBB.
The Commission will not delete the reference to Electronic Bulletin
Boards because pipelines must provide the required information on their
EBBs as well as through downloadable files. The Commission, however,
will modify the regulation slightly to make even more explicit that
both modes of communication must be provided. The Commission expects
pipelines to provide users with instructions for accessing their EBBs
or using EDI transfers without having the user first access the
pipelines' EBB.
VI. Discussion of Items Included in the Standardized Data Sets and
Communication Protocols
The Commission proposed to set forth the information on capacity
availability and the protocols governing the dissemination of that
information in a separate document entitled Standardized Data Sets and
Communication Protocols that would be available at the Commission. The
Commission included this document in the NOPR and commenters raised
issues with respect to the proposed provisions.
A. Standardized Data Sets
1. Operation of the Data Sets
El Paso requests clarification that a pipeline can leave fields in
the data sets blank if the pipeline's tariff does not require the
information to be provided. It cites, as an example, differences in
pipelines' tariffs as to whether volumetric releases are subject to
minimum quantity requirements.
ANR contends the definitions of the terms mandatory and optional,
as used for some fields in the data sets, are confusing. It submits
mandatory refers to data fields that every pipeline must support, while
optional refers to data fields pipelines may offer at their discretion,
unless their individual tariffs require that those fields be supported.
If optional means that all pipelines must support the field, thereby
permitting releasing shippers or bidders with the option of including
information in the field, ANR asserts it would have to incur added
expense to redesign its EBB to include these fields.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\As an example of the difference in definition, an optional
field is releaser contract number. Data Set I.1, line 6. Under ANR's
definition, pipelines would have the discretion to include this
field. Under the second interpretation, pipelines must provide the
field so releasing shippers have the ability to include the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the Commission understands that El Paso's and ANR's
interpretation of the manner in which the data sets are designed to
operate accords with the intent of the Working Groups, and the
Commission agrees with that approach. The Commission, however, sees a
need to provide further clarification of the operation of the data sets
and the mandatory and optional characterization of certain fields. At
the outset, it is important to recognize that these data sets must
apply to all pipelines, and, therefore, the Working Groups had to
design them to be flexible enough to accommodate the different
operational characteristics and information requirements of different
pipelines. Implementation of the data sets perforce will differ across
pipelines.
The data sets are organized along the following lines. First, they
are divided into generic groups for offers, bids, awards, withdrawals,
operationally available capacity, and system wide notices. Some of
these groups are then divided into specialized data sets, for example
for receipt and delivery point information or for storage releases.
Each of these subsets contain mandatory, optional, or contingent
fields.
All pipelines must support the six broad categories of data sets.
Pipeline support of the subsets within each category, however, may
depend on the operational characteristics of individual pipelines.\23\
For example, data sets are included for receipt and delivery point
information and for segment information although not all pipelines are
segment systems. Pipelines will choose from among the combination of
these data sets the ones that best present the relevant information for
their systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\The easiest example is the storage data sets which obviously
will not have to be supported by pipelines without storage fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pipelines choosing a particular data set will be required to
support the mandatory fields in that data set. Pipelines are not
required by this rule to support the optional fields. Some pipelines,
however, may be required by their tariffs or other requirements, to
support some of the optional fields.\24\ Moreover, pipelines must
display all information, whether mandatory or optional, on their on-
line EBBs. For example, if a pipeline is not now displaying mandatory
information on its on-line EBB, it must revise its display format to
accommodate that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\The contingent fields are filled only when a condition in
another field is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned earlier, the Working Groups are continuing to make
refinements in the data sets. In making these refinements, they should
make a further effort to clarify how pipelines must implement these
requirements, such as which fields pipelines must support and which are
optional.
Enron suggests the standardized data sets should be minimum
requirements that pipelines can supplement to accommodate tariff
provisions. As an example, it claims the data sets do not accommodate
Florida Gas' proposal to permit several shippers temporarily to combine
their capacity rights to facilitate release transactions.
The Commission is not sure what flexibility Enron is requesting.
Pipelines cannot add or delete fields from the capacity data sets
because standardization requires that all pipelines use the same
structure for downloading, so shippers can process that information
using the same computer software. For example, if pipelines could add
new data fields, shippers' ASC X12 software might be unable to
interpret the information because the software is keyed to the specific
fields on the implementation guide. Moreover, the Working Groups
anticipated the need to accommodate special release offers or unique
circumstances and included special terms and miscellaneous note fields
for providing such details.\25\ As discussed previously, the Commission
recognizes that pipelines may uncover difficulties in correlating their
information requirements with the downloadable data sets and the
Commission anticipated possibly having to make corrections to the data
sets. The best way for pipelines to avoid problems is to begin the
implementation process immediately so they can report difficulties to
the Working Groups for resolution prior to implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Enron did not describe the specific problem created by
combination offers, and the Commission cannot discern why it could
not be accommodated within the prescribed data sets. For example,
the combination offer could be assigned a single offer number (Data
Set I.1, line 3) with any special circumstances described in the
miscellaneous field (Data Set I.1, line 52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Date and Time Stamps
The proposal put forward by Working Groups 1 and 2 included fields
identifying the date and time when release offers, bids, withdrawals of
bids or offers, and capacity awards are posted on pipelines' EBBs. No
consensus was reached over whether fields should be included to
identify when pipelines actually received offers, bids, or withdrawals
or made the determination to award capacity.
The NOPR proposed to require the inclusion of fields for bid
receipt date and time, but not for the date and time offers and
withdrawals were received or capacity awarded. Since releasing shippers
and pipelines may choose the first come, first served method to break
ties, the Commission found that routine posting of the bid receipt date
and time would permit shippers to verify the award of capacity without
having to contact the pipeline. The Commission did not propose to
include the date and time fields for receipt of offers and withdrawals
or capacity awards, concluding this information was not as important to
capacity release transactions as the bid information. The Commission
stated, however, that information about the date and time offers and
withdrawals were received and capacity awards determined must be
provided by the pipelines upon request.
Several commenters support the Commission's decision to include
only the information about bid receipt in the standardized data
sets.26 Some request clarification as to whether pipelines must
include both the date and time bids are received and posted as
mandatory fields.27 Process Gas Consumers Group contends the
Commission should require inclusion of all the contested items. It
contends the date and time for receipt of capacity withdrawals is
particularly important because releasing shippers have only a limited
right to withdraw offers; it maintains the date and time information is
needed so bidders can determine whether that right has been exercised
validly. It contends pipelines easily can make all the contested
information available in electronic form. The National Registry
requests that even if pipelines are not required to post information
concerning the receipt of offers and withdrawals and determination of
capacity awards, they should be required to provide this information in
electronic form when requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\6Power Generators, AER/MRT, Columbia Gas, Enron.
\2\7KGPL (posting date and time should not be mandatory), NGSA
(both should be required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission adheres to its decision not to require pipelines
routinely to post the receipt date and time for capacity offers and
withdrawals and the date and time capacity awards are made. The Working
Groups could not reach agreement on providing the additional
information, and, as stated in the NOPR, the Commission does not find
that this information is as crucial to capacity release, or will be
needed as frequently, as the bid information. The Commission will not
require pipelines to provide the additional information in electronic
form, because such a requirement would not be significantly different
than requiring the routine, electronic posting of this information,
which the Commission has determined is not necessary. The ability of
users to obtain the information for offers, withdrawals, and awards
upon request appears sufficient. The Commission clarifies that both the
bid receipt and bid posting data fields are mandatory.
PEC Pipeline Group contends the date and time for bids should be
the posting time, arguing if receipt date and time is used, the
information would be unreliable because the bids would not have been
verified for accuracy. It maintains only the date and time of verified
bids should be used to break ties.
The Commission agrees, in principle, that the appropriate
information to include is the date and time used to break ties.
However, in most instances, that will be the date and time bids are
received, not when they are verified. For example, when bids are
submitted near the end of bidding periods, the pipeline may not verify
the bids until after the bid window closes. Under a first come, first
served tie breaking system, capacity would be awarded to the highest
bid received first in time even if the bid was not verified until
later.
3. Operationally Available Capacity
The Commission proposed to adopt the Working Group's consensus
agreement that pipelines provide information on the amount of
unscheduled capacity available at specific locations, such as receipt
and delivery points, mainline, or mainline segments. This field serves
to identify the capacity that would be available as interruptible
service from the pipeline. Edison contends this definition would not
allow shippers to determine whether firm or interruptible capacity is
available. It suggests operationally available capacity be defined as
the capacity a firm shipper can nominate at a point, asserting this
definition would include interruptible capacity that can be displaced
by a firm shipper. Transco contends the amount of unscheduled capacity
is proprietary information that would not be provided in the free
market. Williston Basin does not oppose this requirement, but states
shippers may be able to use this information only for trend analysis,
not for making decisions on a daily basis.
The Commission finds the requirement to provide information on
operationally available or unscheduled capacity is necessary to comply
with the requirement that pipelines identify the interruptible capacity
available on their systems.28 The unscheduled capacity at a point
reveals the capacity available as interruptible service. In response to
Edison's comment, the Commission finds that the consensus approach is
adequate at this point to disclose both the firm and interruptible
capacity available to potential shippers. The operationally available
capacity reveals interruptible service and pipelines also are required
to post the firm service they have available.29 The Working Groups
still are considering issues relating to operationally available
capacity, and the Commission will be open to modification of this
definition if needed.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\8See 18 CFR 284.9(b)(3).
\2\9See 18 CFR 284.8(b)(3). Pipelines would post this
information under the capacity offer data set I.1.
\3\0For example, the Commission is not certain whether Edison
and Transco principally are concerned with the definition of
operationally available (or unscheduled) capacity or with the
different, albeit somewhat related, issue of whether additional
fields are required to divide scheduled (or nominated) capacity into
firm and interruptible components. The issue of identifying the firm
and interruptible components of nominated capacity is still under
deliberation by the Working Groups, and Edison and Transco will have
a further opportunity to address these issues in the Working Group
meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANR asserts that the data field for operationally available
capacity should indicate that the data may be estimates. It also
suggests an additional data field to enable the pipeline to qualify the
accuracy of any information. The Commission agrees with ANR that the
information in this field may be estimates and leaves to the Working
Groups the decision on whether another field is necessary to convey
information about how the estimates are provided.
As discussed earlier, NGSA suggested pipelines be required to make
compliance filings and it submits that these filings include
information on the locations at which operationally available
information will be provided, the manner of display, and the timeliness
of the data. WEV suggests generally that the information provided under
the data sets be as current as the pipeline can provide. While
pipelines will not be required to make compliance filings to implement
this rule, they should provide users with adequate information about
the locations at which they are reporting the information and the
timeliness of the information, which should be as current as is
possible. Since the Commission will have access to the pipelines' EBBs,
it can monitor the adequacy of the information pipelines provide.
4. Disclosure of Minimum Conditions
Hadson contends the Commission should eliminate the field providing
for disclosure of minimum price terms (Data Set I.1, lines 23 and 24).
It contends disclosure of this information while the market is open
facilitates collusion among releasing shippers to maintain higher
prices in a falling market. The Commission will not eliminate this
field because it comports with the Commission's policy of providing
releasing shippers with the option of having their minimum conditions
posted on the EBB.31 This technical proceeding is not the proper
forum to reexamine the Commission's policy in this regard. The
Commission notes, however, that, in a free market, sellers can choose
to disclose minimum price conditions if they find such disclosure
beneficial. For example, stating a minimum price protects against the
possibility a deal will fail simply because a buyer submits a bid lower
than the minimum price even though it is willing to pay the minimum
price if it had known this condition. Moreover, since minimum price
terms are public, the Commission can monitor the situation, and
eliminate this field, if experience shows it does facilitate collusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\1See El Paso Natural Gas Company, 62 FERC 61,311 at 62,999-4
(1993). Releasing shippers choosing not to post their minimum
conditions disclose those conditions only to the pipeline which then
uses those conditions in evaluating bids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Communication Protocols
1. Electronic Data Interchange
The Commission proposed to adopt the recommendation of Working
Group 4 by requiring EBB operators32 to provide for electronic
file downloading of the standardized data sets in compliance with ASC
X12 EDI standards and an implementation guide to be developed by the
Gas*Flow group.33 ASC X12 standards provides an electronic data
submission capability that allows computers to exchange information
over communication lines using standardized formats. To facilitate
these transfers, the ASC X12 standards provide standardized transaction
sets for different types of transactions, such as requests for
quotations and responses to such requests.34 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\2The Commission is adopting Working Group 4's use of the
phrase ``EBB operator'' in the protocols. An EBB operator is either
a pipeline or a third-party vendor providing EBB services for a
pipeline, and pipelines relying on third-party vendors must ensure
they comply with these standards.
\3\3Gas*Flow was organized to promote the acceptance of ASC X12
EDI in the gas industry. It is composed of representatives from the
gas industry, including local distribution companies, marketers,
producers, shippers, and pipelines, and operates under guidance from
the Natural Gas Review Committee.
\3\4Because the ASC X12 transaction sets have been standardized,
commercial software and consulting services are available to assist
users in translating data from standard program files to the
standardized ASC X12 formats and vice versa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission anticipated Gas*Flow would be able to receive
industry input and submit a final implementation guide to the
Commission within a month after promulgation of the final data sets.
The Commission also proposed to require file downloads in a flat ASCII
format in accordance with documentation developed by Gas*Flow, but
requested comments on whether requiring downloads in ASCII format was
needed to supplement the downloads in ASC X12 format.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\5The flat ASCII files also could be transmitted
electronically over communication lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. ASC X12. A few comments address the proposed implementation date
for ASC X12. Tenneco asserts the April 1, 1994 implementation date
should not include EDI compliance, because EDI should be implemented
only when trading partners agree. AER/MRT suggest the date is too
ambitious for ASC X12 implementation. PEC Pipeline Group maintains ANSI
must approve the implementation guide developed by Gas*Flow and asserts
obtaining this approval could affect the timing of ASC X12
implementation as well as the commitment of ASC X12 software vendors to
guarantee the use of their software with these data sets. Despite these
concerns, PEC Pipeline Group is willing to go forward and implement ASC
X12 based on Gas*Flow's recommendations.
Working Group 4 found that ANSI approval of the data sets was not
necessary to go forward with ASC X12 implementation, because the
information could be mapped to an existing ASC X12 data set.36
This is the task Gas*Flow will perform. Only one comment suggested that
the April 1, 1994, date was too ambitious for ASC X12 implementation.
Since the Commission has now extended the implementation date to June
1, 1994, EBB operators should have sufficient time to program their
computer systems to make ASC X12 downloads available by that
date.37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\6Working Group 4 Report at 9.
\3\7ASC X12 downloads must be made available to any party,
including a value added network (VAN). A VAN is a communications or
information system providing an aggregation, routing, and delivery
service. In effect, a VAN provides a user with an electronic mailbox
for receiving information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco argues no implementation date for ASC X12 be set,
contending implementation should occur when trading partners agree. As
the comments suggest, EBB operators need lead time to modify their
system to incorporate ASC X12 downloads. The Commission, therefore,
concludes it needs to set a date by which ASC X12 downloads will be
available to ensure that users wanting this service can obtain it
expeditiously. As specified by Working Group 4, the details of any
special arrangements for access to ASC X12 data between the pipeline
and a trading partner would be worked out between those parties.
Other commenters address the Commission's proposal to use Gas*Flow
to prepare the implementation guide. UDC and Tenneco support the use of
Gas*Flow, but Tenneco suggests the Gas*Flow documentation should be
submitted to the Working Groups prior to submission to the Commission.
Columbia Gas believes the Commission's estimate of one month for
Gas*Flow to prepare the implementation guide is overly optimistic and
provides too little opportunity for the industry to participate in
development.
The Commission expects Gas*Flow to continue its current procedure
of receiving industry comment on its proposed implementation guide and
to submit the guide to the Working Groups for their final approval. The
extension of the implementation date until June 1, 1994, provides
Gas*Flow with sufficient time to obtain industry input and still
finalize the implementation guide in time for the industry to meet the
June 1, 1994 date. Working Groups 1 and 2 and Gas*Flow should
coordinate their efforts to ensure that any additional revisions made
by the Working Groups in the data sets are made in sufficient time to
ensure that EBB operators can implement the ASC X12 downloads by June
1, 1994. Once the implementation guide is completed, the Commission
will include the guide with its data sets.
b. ASCII downloads. A number of commenters contend ASCII downloads
are not needed to supplement ASC X12.38 They generally argue
mandating a second download in ASCII format is not worth the increased
expense and maintain the resources could be better devoted to
development of ASC X12. They recommend ASCII downloads should remain a
pipeline option, as proposed by Working Group 4. AER/MRT and Northwest,
on the other hand, recommend ASCII downloads replace ASC X12,
contending that ASCII is less costly, and faster and more efficient to
implement than ASC X12 and that their customers prefer ASCII to ASC
X12. Others support the Commission's proposal of maintaining ASCII as
an adjunct to ASC X12 since some users may not have ASC X12 capability
and ASCII would ensure those users could download the data.39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\8Columbia Gas, El Paso (noting software can translate between
ASCII and ASC X12); Enron, INGAA (ASC X12 is more comprehensive and
ASCII might not be demanded after ASC X12); National (contending EDI
software costs only $500), Natural, WEV, and NGSA (customers wanting
ASCII should have to pay the costs).
\3\9Brooklyn Union and Process Gas Consumers Group (but noting
ASCII may be of limited value unless software developers or the
users themselves develop programs to extract the needed
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission will not substitute ASCII downloads for ASC X12 as
suggested by Northwest and AER/MRT. Even if ASCII downloads would be
less expensive to prepare initially, as Northwest and AER/MRT contend,
the consensus of the industry was to provide for download capability
using ASC X12 because it provided significant benefits when compared
with downloads using ASCII format. Some of these benefits include the
availability of already standardized and well-accepted procedures and
the concomitant software and businesses available to implement the
technology. The Commission anticipates that, as ASC X12 is more widely
used in the gas industry, users will recognize the advantages to using
ASC X12, as they have in other industries, and it will become the
industry standard for communication. Nevertheless, to ease the
transition to ASC X12 for those customers not yet familiar with the ASC
X12 technology, the Commission will require EBB operators to provide
for downloading capability in a flat ASCII format as well.
2. Protocols for Communications Software and Hardware, Access
Requirements, and Log-On Procedures
Commenters raise questions about the Commission's proposed
protocols relating to the software and modem speeds used to access
EBBs, the requirements for obtaining access to EBBs, and the procedures
and principles for logging-on to computers. Columbia Distribution
argues the Commission's proposed protocols fail to reflect two
principles to which the pipelines agreed: the pipelines' recognition of
the need to develop a mechanism under which users can log-on to
multiple EBBs with one phone call; and their commitment to work in good
faith to address other customer concerns, such as log-on procedures,
additional file transfer options, and other logistical concerns. IPAA
suggests a standardized basic user interface must be developed, as
opposed to each pipeline specifying a different communications package.
Because the statements mentioned by Columbia Distribution reflected
a goal for future discussions, rather than a consensus on specific
procedures or principles, the Commission did not include them in its
current protocols. The Commission recognizes that further
standardization of access requirements could reduce the burden on users
which have to access many pipeline EBBs. But Working Group 4 concluded,
from its review of pipeline EBBs, that adoption of one standard
communication package for accessing EBBs was made impracticable at this
time by the proliferation of different hardware and other operating
considerations used by the various pipeline EBBs.40 Instead, it
reached consensus on the principle that each EBB operator must provide
a script detailing its log-on procedures which is compatible with the
software package used to access the EBB and must provide for file
downloads through VANs.41 The Commission, therefore, will not
require further standardization in this area at this time, but will
leave any such modifications to the continuing Working Group
deliberations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\0Working Group 4 Report at 6.
\4\1By using a VAN, a user could have files from multiple
pipelines delivered to its electronic mailbox, obviating the need to
log-on to each of the pipelines' EBBs individually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Distribution also asserts some pipelines are proposing to
make electronic contracting mandatory for certain transactions; it
contends electronic contracting raises legal and business practice
issues that should be addressed by the Working Groups. Issues regarding
electronic contracting are legal and policy concerns that have been
addressed in restructuring or other proceedings42 and are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking, which focuses on technical issues of how
to exchange information. The Working Groups have more than enough
technical issues to consider, and the expertise of these groups lies in
the technical, not policy, arena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\2See Questar Pipeline Company, 62 FERC 61,192 at 62,307-08,
aff'd, 64 FERC 61,157 at 62,283-84 (1993); Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Corporation, 65 FERC 61,023 slip op. at 90-93 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest contends the Commission should not require pipelines to
support the 2400 baud modem speed because any speed slower than 9600
baud will place too great a burden on the EBB communication network. It
recommends each pipeline be able to choose the appropriate modem speed
so long as it identifies the hardware necessary to access the EBB.
Working Group 4 reached consensus on the principle that pipelines must
support a minimum modem speed so all potential users will have
reasonable access to the EBBs.43 The Commission will not disturb
the consensus, since Working Group 4's rationale is reasonable and the
Commission has no data on the impact on user access of permitting
pipelines to require higher modem speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\3Working Group 4 Report at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes that modem speeds higher than 9600 are in
use. The Commission is amending the protocols to provide that EBB
operators supporting such higher modem speeds must comply with the
recognized national or international standards governing modem
communication.
Transco recommends changes to three of the communication protocols.
First, it argues the Commission should clarify that the requirement for
24-hour EDI access (protocol ID) is subject to two separate
contingencies, required periodic maintenance and unpredicted downtime.
The Commission sees no need to change this language from what was
proposed by Working Group 4; the possibility of unforseen events
causing computer problems is well understood and need not be addressed
separately. Second, Transco contends the Commission's proposed language
on advance authorization for third-party access to commercially
sensitive data (protocol IIIA) is unclear because it does not specify
that the pipeline's customer must provide the authorization.44 The
Commission agrees that the customer must authorize access to
commercially sensitive data and will modify this principle accordingly.
Third, Transco asserts the Commission's proposed language for log-on
scripts (protocol IVB) does not reflect the principle put forward by
Working Group 4, because it fails to make clear that the script for
customized software packages is part of the customized package, not a
separate software code. The Commission will modify this protocol to
reflect this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\4A pipeline customer might want to authorize an agent to
obtain commercially sensitive information about the customer, such
as the customer's nominations, from the EBB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Common Codes
1. Introduction
In the NOPR, the Commission found the post-Order No. 636 business
environment and the computerization of capacity release transactions
required the development of common, standardized codes in two areas:
Codes to identify companies; and common transaction point codes to
enable shippers to use a single coding structure to identify pipeline
points, particularly interconnect points between pipelines. Working
Group 5 had identified, but had not finalized, a process for developing
both sets of codes. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that it expected
Working Group 5 to finalize its proposal for common company codes by
February 1, 1994.
For common transaction points, Working Group 5 proposed an approach
in which a third-party (code assignor) would 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 would maintain the cross-reference table on
their computers and could convert proprietary pipeline codes to the
common code, and vice versa. The Commission was concerned about the
feasibility of this process, at least in the short term, because
Working Group 5 had not worked out the details of the approach (such as
how to select a code assignor, pay for the costs of the initial
assignment and continued maintenance, or distribute the code) and had
suggested this process be undertaken by a yet undeveloped gas industry
standards board. Due to the importance of this issue, the Commission
gave the Working Group until October 1, 1993, to finalize this approach
or reach another consensus approach. If no consensus was reached, the
Commission proposed to select a common code and require the pipelines
to make the translation to the common code. The Commission requested
comments on whether it should adopt the PI-GRID code developed by the
Petroleum Information Corporation or another common code.
Many commenters support the development of a common code and the
selection of the PI-GRID code if consensus on an alternative is not
reached.45 Columbia Distribution and Exxon contend the pipelines,
not the users, should make the translation. Pipelines contend that
requiring them to make the translation to the common code would
increase costs significantly, because it would affect all their
computer operations, such as those for accounting, scheduling, and
management, which are based on the use of proprietary codes.46
They assert Commission selection of the common code could impede the
cooperative efforts of the industry to date and recommend the
Commission permit Working Group 5 to continue its efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\5Power Generators, NYMEX/EnerSoft, WEV, IPAA, Destec Energy,
FMA, NGSA, Edison, WEV.
\4\6Columbia Gas, Enron, INGAA, KGPL, Natural, Transco, Tenneco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 12, 1993, Working Group 5 filed its report which
detailed its consensus agreement on a code assignor process along the
lines of its previous proposal. As discussed below, the Commission is
adopting the Working Group's proposal.
2. The Proposal
The common code structure proposed by the Working Group would
consist of two components. The first would be the code number itself, a
16 digit number, which according to the Working Group, would provide
the user with some information about each point.47 The second is a
common code data base consisting of data elements that will be
associated with each common code. These data elements include such
information as the name of the point, the owner operator of the point,
a flow indicator showing the direction of gas flow at the point, and a
point locator (e.g., geographic coordinates, survey coordinates, or
line number or mile marker) to be provided when the information is
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\7For example, for each non-well facility point, the first two
numbers indicate the state; the second three, the county; the next
five a surface location within the state; the next two, the facility
code; the next two, a sub number identifying components of certain
types of facilities (e.g., gas plant inlets from tailgates); and the
final two, a detail number identifying multiple facilities at the
same location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposal, PI-GRID will be the code assignor and will
provide a copy of the data base to any requestor at a price reflecting
only its distribution and handling costs. The Working Group also
proposes that various Code Distributors will enter into agreements with
PI-GRID to distribute the code. These agreements would provide that the
Code Distributors would not be able to charge for the data base itself,
but would be able to charge for other ``value added'' services, such as
selective extraction of information from the data base.48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\8The Working Group envisions a series of contracts, beginning
with a master agreement between PI-GRID and a consortium of the gas
industry. If a gas industry standards board eventually is developed,
it would then take over this contract. PI-GRID would enter into
contracts based on the master agreement with Code Distributors, and
the Code Distributors would enter into agreements with users
specifying the services Distributor will provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on discussions with PI-GRID, the Working Group anticipates
six months will be required to establish and validate the common codes
for a large majority of interstate pipelines. If the industry begins
the coding process this winter, the Working Group expects the creation
of a complete common code data base by the 1994-95 winter heating
season.
Under the proposal, all business will be transacted with pipelines
using proprietary codes. Those wanting to use the common code will have
to program their computers to translate between common and proprietary
codes to communicate with pipelines. Pipelines will be required to
verify and validate their proprietary code information to PI-GRID. The
proposal also provides for ongoing assignment of new transaction points
and modifications to existing points. The information for these
revisions must be provided at least ten days before a new or modified
code goes into effect.
The Working Group states that, at this point, the demand for common
codes is unknown; some parties using only one or a small number of
pipelines may prefer to continue using proprietary codes. Given this
level of uncertainty, the Working Group contends the code assignor
process provides a number of benefits compared to a requirement that
all pipelines adopt a common code. It provides a verified and validated
common code system to those who need it, while ensuring that the costs
of using common codes are borne by the users, not those still
preferring to use proprietary codes. It will provide consistent
communication between pipelines and customers using proprietary codes,
avoiding the difficulties that would be created if business
transactions and other customer contacts employed different coding
systems. And, it will provide an initial first test of the level of
demand for, and efficiency of using, a common code. Should a common
code prove efficient, the Working Group expects the market to evolve to
the point where common codes will be used for all communications.
3. Comments on the Working Group Filing
Process Gas Consumers Group and NYMEX/Enersoft raise objections to
the code assignor process. Process Gas Consumers Group objects to the
shipper having the responsibility for maintaining a rather large data
set on its computer and having to develop, or acquire from others, the
``intelligence'' needed to compare capacity release offers among
pipelines to identify possible alternative transportation paths.49
It maintains that the most burdensome task facing pipelines is
verifying their proprietary codes and that including the common code in
the capacity release data sets would not be particularly burdensome. It
emphasizes that including such codes in the data sets would be for
informational purposes only, and would not require the pipelines to
conduct business using the common codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\9It also suggests that a common code system could include
mile markers or other geographic location information so software
could identify delivery points either upstream or downstream of a
location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYMEX/EnerSoft contend pipelines should not be able to require
customers to communicate using proprietary codes, because users will
then have to obtain translation software to convert the common codes to
the proprietary codes. It maintains that having the pipelines perform
the translation is preferable since there are fewer pipelines than
market participants.
The other commenters support the code assignor process. AER/MRT
supports the use of proprietary codes for communication between
pipelines and users, because use of one code will minimize the
likelihood of miscommunication. It also argues requiring shippers to
perform the translation appropriately requires those using common codes
to bear the costs of that use. Gaslantic contends the Commission should
ensure that initial and updated common codes are distributed on an
open-access basis, and IPAA similarly supports the provision of the
data base without cost.
The National Registry suggests two clarifications. It is concerned
about the possibility that PI-GRID, as code assignor, might delay
distribution of the code in order to degrade the value of services
provided by competitors. It suggests PI-GRID should be required to file
a letter with the Commission when it has completed more than 90% of the
cross-referencing for each pipeline and provide the code to
distributors at that point. It further contends that information on the
location of points (such as geographic coordinates or pipeline line
number of mile marker) is critical, but that the proposed data sets
requires this information to be included only when available. It
maintains the Commission should clarify when this information must be
provided, suggesting it should be supplied for path pipelines, but not
for point-to-point or network pipelines.50 In line with this
request, it suggests the Commission require pipelines to include in
their next Form 567 filing an identification of the proprietary point
code associated with the points in the flow diagrams.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\0It similarly seeks clarification that available information
will be validated and become part of the cross-reference table.
\5\1Form No. 567 is diagram of the operating conditions on the
pipeline's main transmission system for the prior year. 18 CFR
260.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Commission Adoption of the Working Group Proposal
Given the level of support for the code assignor process, the
Commission accepts the Working Group proposal and will implement it by
requiring pipelines to provide a mechanism through which any person can
obtain a validated computerized data base that will provide the ability
to convert from pipeline proprietary codes to a common code. The
Working Group stated the code assignment process could be completed by
the start of the 1994-95 winter heating season, and the Commission,
therefore, will require the implementation of this approach by November
1, 1994. The Commission also will require pipelines to ensure that the
common codes and data base, and any updates, will be provided without
charge, except for reasonable distribution and handling fees.
The Commission will adopt the data sets as proposed by the Working
Group with one modification. The Commission will require that the point
locator information be mandatory. The Commission agrees with the
commenters that the ability to locate pipeline points in relation to
other points on the system is important if users are to use the common
code data base to determine if a package of released capacity fits
their needs. When pipelines verify their proprietary codes to PI-GRID,
they must include information sufficient to enable users to locate a
point on one pipeline in relation to other points. At this point, the
pipelines can choose the method of locating the points, such as
geographic coordinates, line number or line marker, but the Commission
envisions that eventually all pipelines should move to using geographic
coordinates so that points on different pipelines can be related to
each other.
Gaslantic and IPAA support the provision of the data base and
updates at no cost to the user. The Working Group report states
distributors cannot charge more than postage and handling costs for
providing the code itself, but can charge for value added services. The
Commission is requiring the pipelines to ensure that users can obtain
the data base and any updates at a price that reflects only reasonable
costs of distribution and handling. Additional charges, however, may be
assessed for other value added services relating to updates.
The requirement that point locator information be mandatory for all
pipelines obviates the requests by the National Registry for a further
definition of the term ``available'' to describe when point locator
information will be provided and for requiring point location
disclosure in Form 567 filings. The provision of point locator
information also should satisfy Process Gas Consumers Group's request
for geographic location points.
The National Registry suggests that the Commission require PI-GRID
to file a statement with the Commission when it has completed more than
90% of the cross-referencing for each pipeline and provide the code to
distributors at that point. The Commission has set a deadline for final
dissemination of the common code data base and finds no reason to
require filings as the data are compiled or piecemeal implementation.
NYMEX/Enersoft contend pipelines should be required to conduct
business using common codes. The Commission will not impose this
requirement at this time, since it goes beyond the consensus agreement
reached by Working Group 5. Shippers will be able to use the cross-
reference table to convert electronically from the common codes to the
proprietary codes for communication with the pipeline.
Process Gas Consumers Group maintains that including the common
codes in the capacity release data sets would be more efficient,
although they do not suggest pipelines be required to conduct business
using the common code. This suggestion too goes beyond the consensus
agreement reached by the Working Groups, and the Commission will not
impose it.
Moreover, even if the common code (consisting of 16 digits) was
included in the capacity release data sets, the efficiency of the
process might not be enhanced to a significant degree. The extensive
data base that goes along with the common code would not be on the
EBBs, and users may very well need the underlying data base to provide
the information they require to perform an analysis of capacity paths.
As described earlier, the sequence of numbers in the code itself
provides users only with limited information, such as identifying the
state and county of the point. But the entire common code data base
provides additional information about points, such as the point locator
information, that users may well need to use the common code
effectively in comparing capacity releases over multiple pipelines. The
Commission further notes that Working Groups 1 and 2 have included an
optional field for common codes which pipelines may make available to
their users. Use of this field may provide a test of whether bidders
would derive value from access to the common code numbers, without also
having the underlying data base available.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the industry has taken a
positive step forward by designing a process that will ensure that
those wanting to use common codes can do so effectively within a
reasonable period of time. The Commission expects use of this system
will prove to enhance efficiency by better enabling shippers to manage
the transportation of gas supplies across the nationwide pipeline grid.
As pipelines review and update their computer and financial systems in
light of the changed business environment created by Order No. 636, the
Commission expects them to incorporate the use of common codes.
Ultimately, the Commission anticipates that the common codes ultimately
will become the standard used for all transactions and communications
between pipelines and their customers.
VII. Issues not Addressed in the Standardized Data Sets and
Communication Protocols
The Working Group reports included minority positions on some
issues, and these issues also were addressed in the comments on the
Working Group reports. On several issues, the Commission recommended
that the Working Groups continue their efforts to seek resolution, with
reports to be made by February 1, 1994. Others involved policy
questions which the Commission found were beyond the scope of this
proceeding and would be better examined in other fora.
A. Proposed Additions to the Standardized Data Sets
1. Index of Purchasers
The National Registry proposed that an Index of Purchasers (Index),
which would disclose a variety of information about the capacity rights
of firm capacity holders, be available on EBBs and through downloadable
files.52 It asserted this index could be used to establish the
baseline contractual rights of current holders of pipeline capacity,
information which it believed was needed so potential purchasers could
determine the releasable rights of firm capacity holders. In the NOPR,
the Commission did not propose to include the proposed Index because
the proposal appeared too burdensome and costly. But the Commission
stated it considered a more limited Index to have value in identifying
firm shippers with releasable capacity. It suggested the Working Groups
work on a cost-effective method of presenting such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\2The Commission requires pipeline tariffs to include an index
of firm capacity holders, with less detail than what was proposed by
the National Registry. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 65 FERC
61,224 slip op. at 182 (1993); 18 CFR 154.41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters contend the benefits of an Index do not warrant the
cost, since shippers willing to release capacity are free to post
offers to sell and potential purchasers can post so-called want ads,
advertising the capacity they want to acquire.53 INGAA suggests
the Commission not prejudge the outcome of this issue, but instead
permit the Working Group process to determine whether an Index in any
form is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\3AER/MRT, Columbia Distribution, Con Edison (if Index is
adopted, it should be operated independently and funded by
subscribers), Enron (too costly and burdensome); KGPL, Natural, UDC,
Williston Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others contend an Index would be valuable in providing convenient
access to baseline information on those holding firm service so buyers
could determine whom to approach to negotiate prearranged deals for
capacity.54 They contend the Index would replace the index of
sales customers pipelines previously maintained and should not be
difficult for pipelines to provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\4FMA, IPAA, NGSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission will not decide this issue now because it is still
being considered by the Working Groups. But the Commission continues to
find merit in the concept of providing a cost-effective electronic
Index of purchasers and expects the participants in the Working Groups
to consider this issue in the same open-minded and conciliatory manner
they used to build consensus on other issues in this proceeding.
The Commission also did not propose to make data items for contract
number and replacement contract number mandatory fields, finding that
these items were tied to the proposed Index.\55\ The National Registry
contends its request to make contract and replacement contract numbers
mandatory fields is independent of the Index. It asserts these data are
needed by the Commission, state commissions, and others to create an
audit trail to verify the ownership of capacity being released and
acquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\The releaser's contract number is an optional field and so
may be included by pipelines when they deem such information to be
necessary for operation of their systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Commission will not require the inclusion of contract
and replacement contract number in the data sets at this time, it does
recognize that pipelines will need to maintain a correlation between
release transactions and the contracts resulting from those
transactions for Commission audit requirements if not also for the
pipelines' own purposes. Since pipelines must maintain this information
in any event, the Working Groups should consider making this
information mandatory in the downloadable data sets to make access
easier.
2. Nominations for Firm and Interruptible Capacity
No consensus was reached in the Working Groups whether to include
fields showing confirmed firm and interruptible nominations and a field
showing whether no-notice service is available at a location.
Proponents of providing this information contended it was needed for
releasing shippers and bidders to assess the value of released
capacity, while opponents maintained it is not needed to bid on
capacity, but would unfairly tilt the market in favor of bidders. The
parties also disagreed on the availability, and costs, of providing the
information.
In the NOPR, the Commission found that the available information
did not permit it to resolve the issue. Moreover, the Commission
recognized the Working Groups had little time to consider this matter
fully and, therefore, strongly encouraged them to continue their
discussions and to explore alternatives for providing information
relevant to the purchasing of capacity that is operationally feasible
to provide at reasonable cost.
The comments on the NOPR essentially parallel the previous
positions: proponents state the information is needed to make business
judgments and is information that would be available in a free
market;\56\ opponents contend it would undermine capacity release, is
too costly to provide, would not be provided in a free market, and
unfairly requires shippers to divulge competitive information that
would be used against them.\57\ NGSA and Destec Energy comment that the
Commission must be prepared to judge the merits of disputes, like this
one, which are based on competing economic interests. FMA asserts that
for unresolved disputes, special consideration should be given to the
views of end-users, because they are the ones paying for natural gas
and transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\Power Generators, Destec Energy, FMA, Edison.
\57\Columbia Distribution, Con Edison, Enron, KGPL, National,
Natural, Transco, and UDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the Working Groups should continue to
examine and explore means of reaching a compromise on this issue. The
Commission does not agree that the views of any one group should
predominate over others. The parties should seek to accommodate each
other's interests, as they have on other issues, a process more likely
to produce a resolution preferable to both sides than if the Commission
decides. Should agreement on whether to provide the information prove
elusive, the parties should, at a minimum, seek to agree upon a cost
effective method of providing the information if the Commission
determines it is necessary.
B. Communication Protocols for Uploading Files and Downloading Subsets
of Files
In the NOPR, the Commission stated that development of standards
permitting users to transmit (upload) files to the pipelines' computers
as well as to download subsets of files could increase the efficiency
of the capacity allocation mechanism. File upload capability, for
example, would permit bidders to submit their bids electronically
without having to sign-on to the pipelines' on-line EBBs. The ability
to download a subset of a capacity release file, such as release
information received after a certain date, would permit users to
eliminate unneeded information from the files they download and also
increase the efficiency of the communication process. The Commission
endorsed Working Group 4's plan to continue its efforts to develop
these capabilities.
Many commenters support file uploading to provide efficient
communication.\58\ Others, principally pipelines, raise questions about
file uploading. They contend file uploading is not as well suited as
on-line EBBs to handling bids submitted near the close of bidding
periods, because, unlike EBBs, uploading is not an interactive system
permitting immediate notification to bidders of errors in their
bids.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\Power Generators, Columbia Distribution, Con Edison, NYMEX/
EnerSoft, Edison, Tenneco (noting effort should not be
oversimplified), WEV, and Williston Basin (noting uploads must be
coordinated with interactive EBBs, especially at the end of bidding
periods when quick action is needed).
\59\El Paso, Natural, Transco, Northwest, KGPL, National (also
may expose pipelines' computers to security risks, such as viruses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edison states downloading of file subsets should be a priority.
Columbia Gas maintains downloads of subsets based on dates is
reasonable, but adding other criteria could be burdensome, while
Williston Basin contends any subset downloads would be too expensive.
UDC suggests the Commission should not mandate file uploading or
downloading of file subsets, but should trust the market to develop
these capabilities if they are needed.
The Commission is convinced that the development of effective file
uploading and subset downloading capability would markedly enhance
communication efficiency related to capacity release. Working Group 4
should continue to assign a high priority to developing standards in
this area. The Commission recognizes the concerns with uploads
submitted close to the end of the bidding period, but is confident the
Working Groups can develop the necessary standards to deal with this
issue.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\For example, one possible approach the Working Groups could
consider is whether all bids received within some time period prior
to the close of the bidding period should be treated as having been
received at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Standardization of Non-Capacity Release Business Transactions
The industry established Working Group 3 to consider the
development of standards relating to business practices, other than
capacity release, resulting from the business changes fostered by
pipeline restructuring under Order No. 636. In its report, the Working
Group did not propose any standards; it outlined the areas of highest
priority and its process for continuing to examine these issues.
Several commenters support the continuation of these efforts,
maintaining standardization of these business data is critically
important to the industry.\61\ Vesta contends the Commission should
require the pipelines now to provide the 16 data items tentatively
established by Working Group 3 as being the most critical. Others
oppose the continuation of Working Group 3's deliberations, arguing
standards in these areas are not required by Order No. 636 and the
Commission should limit its promulgation of standards to those
essential for capacity release.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\Exxon, NGSA, O&R.
\62\PEC Pipeline Group, UDC, Tenneco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has recognized the restructuring occasioned by Order
No. 636 likely will result in changes to business practices, apart from
capacity release, which could require further standardization.\63\
Standardizing capacity release information was the first step in this
process, but now the Working Groups should turn their attention to
standards for these other business transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\See Order No. 636-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at
30,459 (standards may be needed to ensure efficient movement of gas
across pipelines); March 10, 1993, Notice (capacity release
standards first step in standardization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From over 66 items proposed for review, Working Group 3 found 33 to
be of high priority, and of those 33, focused its initial review on ten
elements.\64\ In the Commission's view, standardization of these ten,
or most of them, would provide a good departure point for this effort.
The Commission realizes all facets of the industry may not have equal
need for all these elements, but these elements would appear to have
wide enough coverage that the benefits from standardization will be
widespread. Moreover, once standards are in place, those who may not
now perceive a need for standards, may come to realize the standards
will make their business more efficient, and even those who do not need
the standards themselves, stand to benefit if other segments of the
industry become more efficient.\65\ The Working Group should propose an
appropriate implementation schedule for the ten identified data
elements. The Working Group also should 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\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. Working Group 3 Report at 5-6.
\65\For example, if standards reduce producers' costs or result
in making gas a more viable option for fuel switchable users, all
will benefit from lower prices and greater use of the gas
transportation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Policy Issues
The minority reports and initial comments raised questions about
three policy issues: the method of recovering the costs of
standardization, pipeline disclaimers of liability for EBB operation,
and the disclosure of non-price considerations underlying capacity
release transactions. The Commission stated in the NOPR that such
substantive policy issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding and
are more appropriately considered in individual proceedings.
1. Costs of Standardization
In the NOPR, the Commission recognized the concern of firm shippers
that the costs of compliance with the EBB standards should be spread
equitably across all those benefitting from the standards. The
Commission encouraged the industry to consider methods for ensuring
equitable sharing of such costs, such as user or access fees.
Many commenters support development of a fair and equitable method
of allocating costs.\66\ Transco and Williston Basin maintain EDI, in
particular, is not suitable for all customers and suggest the costs of
implementing this technology should be borne by those benefitting from
it. PSCW contends LDCs should not have to subsidize the costs of
providing information benefitting other parties and suggests an
incremental pricing system for all information beyond a basic level. A
number of commenters are concerned about leaving the issue solely to
rate cases.\67\ They maintain the policy needs to be consistent across
pipelines and urge the Commission to decide on the method for
allocating costs in this proceeding or in another generic proceeding,
leaving implementation to individual rate cases. Power Generators
opposes inclusion of this issue in the Working Groups, because the
success of the Groups was due to their focus on technical issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\AGA. UDC, WEV.
\67\AER/MRT, Brooklyn Union, Columbia Distribution, UDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso, Tenneco, and INGAA contend user or access fees are not
appropriate for recovery of upfront costs, and Natural expresses
concern that access fees may not be sufficient to compensate
pipelines.68 FMA suggests, in the absence of consensus on a new
approach, the proper approach is to continue with the Order No. 636
policy of recovering fixed costs through reservation charges and only
variable costs through usage charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\8INGAA suggests direct charges may be appropriate for
additional services and features that go beyond the standards to be
adopted by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the Commission finds that its previous policy of
permitting the pipelines to recover fixed costs through a reservation
charge and only variable costs through a usage charge is appropriate
for the basic EBB service. This basic service includes, at a minimum,
the downloadable data sets and communication protocols established in
this rule, which the Commission finds are necessary to promote a viable
capacity release market and should provide generalized system-wide
benefits to all users of the pipeline grid. Until additional standards
are presented, the Commission cannot determine whether they provide
sufficient benefits to the industry as a whole to warrant inclusion in
the basic EBB package.
For enhancements to the basic EBB service, which are not of general
benefit, the Commission is open to considering cost recovery approaches
that will recover fixed costs from the limited number of users deriving
benefit from the service. The Commission encourages the industry to
pursue such approaches.
As an example, pipelines could consider using a process for
recovering the costs of enhancements to the standard EBB package from
only those customers that subscribe to the enhancements. The pipeline
could explore with the users of its EBB the costs of providing a
particular service or group of services and methods of recovering these
costs from the subscribing users, such as through access fees,
reservation charges, or direct charges. The pipeline and the users also
could establish mechanisms for reimbursing the initial subscribers if
additional users later evince an interest in obtaining the services.
Once having obtained agreement from those customers desiring the
service, the pipeline could make a tariff filing to establish the
method of recovery or submit an application or petition for a
declaratory order requesting advance Commission review of the proposed
costs and charges.69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\918 CFR 385.204, 385.207. This process would be similar to
the advance approval for research, development, and demonstration
projects. 18 CFR 154.38(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Liability
Several commenters suggest the liability standard for EBB
operations should be the same across all pipelines and, therefore,
should be resolved either in this proceeding or in another generic
proceeding.70 Peoples Gas, et al., supports consideration of the
issue in individual proceedings, but suggests the Commission restate
here its standard that pipeline liability for EBB operations should be
no different than for other operations. UDC asks the Commission to
state that it will enforce its standard. Some parties contend the
Commission should adopt a new standard, arguing EBBs are not like other
pipeline operations since parties other than the pipeline are
responsible for providing information.71 Because verification of
such information is time consuming, they recommend each party ensure
the accuracy of the information it provides. Con Edison, in contrast,
argues that pipeline tariff provisions regarding EBB user
indemnification of the pipeline are too onerous and hold the EBB user
to a higher standard of responsibility than applies to the pipeline.
Enron contends the issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\0Columbia Distribution, Con Edison, NGSA, NYMEX/EnerSoft.
\7\1Tenneco, Con Edison, NYSEG, WEV (knowingly providing false
information should subject provider to damages).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission agrees that this issue goes beyond the technical
concerns with standards development which were the focus of this
proceeding. The Commission can determine policy related issues in
individual cases without having to establish a new generic proceeding
and already has addressed this issue in restructuring orders. The
Commission has adopted the principle that a pipeline's liability for
EBB operations should be the same as for its other operations.72
The Commission also has addressed user liability standards in
individual restructuring orders based upon the specific pipeline EBB
agreement.73 In general, the Commission has determined that a
user's liability for unauthorized use of a customer identification
number is limited to negligence or a wrongful act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\2Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, 65 FERC 61,019 slip op.
at 23-24 (1993); Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership,
65 FERC 61,004 slip op. at 29-30 (1993).
\7\3South Georgia Natural Gas Company, 64 FERC 61,251 slip op.
11-12 (1993); East Tennessee Natural Gas Company, 65 FERC 61,223
(1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Non-Price Considerations
O&R contends standards are needed to guard against capacity
releases involving deals for indirect consideration, such as capacity
release transactions tied to gas supply arrangements. It asserts this
issue is not better addressed in individual proceedings, but requires a
definitive policy statement. The Commission adheres to its conclusion
that this issue is outside the scope of this technical rulemaking and
should not be an issue considered by the continuing Working Group
sessions. The Commission has addressed this concern in individual
restructuring proceedings based on the facts and circumstances in each
case.74 As pointed out previously, should the Commission decide a
general policy in this area is required in the future, the Commission
need not articulate its policy through a generic proceeding, but can do
so in individual proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\4See Northwest Pipeline Corporation, 63 FERC 61,124 at
61,803 (1993); Pacific Gas Transmission Company, 64 FERC 61,052 at
61,455-56 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Gas Industry Standards Board
Several of the Working Group reports, and initial comments,
endorsed the development of a Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) which
ultimately would replace the Working Groups and continue the
development and maintenance of industry-wide standards. In the NOPR,
the Commission stated it was interested in this concept and invited
submission of a proposal as to how it would operate.
Many commenters support an industry standards board in concept as
long as all industry segments are represented, but noted the concept is
still in the planning phase so any detailed comments would be
premature.75 A number of commenters emphasized that the GISB
concept should not interfere with the on-going efforts of the Working
Groups. El Paso did not support an industry standards board unless it
was limited to communication format standards, and O&R contended such a
board should be an advisory panel only. Con Edison, in contrast,
contends the scope of the board should be extended beyond electronic
communication to include standardization relating to pipeline
operations, imbalances, and nominations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\5See Power Generators, Northwest, Tenneco, Williston Basin,
AGA, AER/MRT, AGD, Brooklyn Union, Columbia Distribution, Columbia
Gas, Destec Energy, Exxon, NGSA, Process Gas Consumers Group , IPAA,
KGPL, Transco, UDC, Natural, Peoples Gas, et al., Edison, Texaco,
PEC Pipeline Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 2, 1993, the Commission met with representatives from
the Natural Gas Council to hear a report on the progress of GISB. The
Commission remains interested in this concept and looks forward to a
detailed proposal. When the Commission receives a proposal, it will
give close consideration to the effects of such an independent industry
standardization effort on all facets of the gas industry, Commission
regulation, and state regulation.
In the meantime, the Working Group efforts should continue apace.
The Working Groups should not defer or delay the development of
standards in anticipation of the formation of a standards board.
Moreover, they should ensure their proposals can stand alone and should
not rely upon the eventual existence of a standards board as the means
to administer the standards.
VIII. Environmental Analysis
The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human environment.76 The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.77 The action taken here falls within the categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying or procedural and that relate to information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination.78 Therefore, an environmental
assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\6Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 30 (1987).
\7\718 CFR 380.4.
\7\8See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)79 generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission hereby certifies
that the regulations proposed herein will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\95 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. Information Collection Requirement
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval
of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
rules.80 The information/EBB requirements of this final rule are
under FERC-549(B), Gas Pipeline Rates: Capacity Release Information,
(OMB Control No. 1902-0169).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\05 CFR 1320.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The required information under FERC-549(A) enables the Commission
to carry out its legislative mandate under the NGA and NGPA and will
ensure a viable capacity release market under Commission Order No. 636.
Specifically, the required information allows the Commission to review/
monitor capacity release transactions and firm and interruptible
capacity made available directly from pipelines and to take appropriate
action, where and when necessary.
The Commission is submitting notification of these information/EBB
requirements to OMB for its review and approval. Interested persons may
send comments regarding the burden estimates or any other aspect of
these EBB standards/information requirements, including suggestions for
reducing the estimated burden, by contacting the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 941 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Information Services Division, (202)
208-1415]. Comments on the requirements of the subject final rule may
also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk
Officer for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
XI. Effective Date
This final rule shall take effect February 4, 1994.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284
Continental shelf, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, part 284, chapter I, title 18,
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below.
PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES
1. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7532;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.
2. In Sec. 284.8, paragraph (b)(5) is redesignated paragraph (b)(6)
and new paragraph 284.8(b)(5) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 284.8 Firm transportation service.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Standardization of information provided on Electronic Bulletin
Boards.
(i) An interstate pipeline must provide access to standardized
information relevant to the availability of service on its system on
its Electronic Bulletin Board and through downloadable files in
compliance with standardized communication protocols. The standardized
information and the communication protocols are found in ``Standardized
Data Sets And Communication Protocols,'' which can be obtained from the
Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 941 North Capitol Street NE., Washington DC
20426.
(ii) An interstate pipeline must implement these standards,
procedures, and protocols by June 1, 1994, unless the Standardized Data
Sets And Communication Protocols specify an implementation date.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 284.9, paragraph (b)(4) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 284.9 Interruptible transportation service.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The requirement of paragraph (b)(3) of this section must be
implemented through the use of an Electronic Bulletin Board with the
features required under Sec. 284.8(b)(4) and complying with
Sec. 284.8(b)(5).
* * * * *
Note: This Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Appendix A--Parties Filing Comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
Docket No. RM93-4-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter Abbreviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ad Hoc Group of Power Generators\81\ and Edison Power Generators.
Electric Institute.
American Gas Association........................... AGA.
ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas ANR/CIG.
Company.
Arkla Energy Resources Company and Mississippi AER/MRT.
River Transmission Corporation.
Associated Gas Distributors........................ AGD.
Brooklyn Union Gas Company......................... Brooklyn Union.
Columbia Gas Distribution Companies\82\............ Columbia
Distribution.
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and Columbia Columbia Gas.
Gulf Transmission Company.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc....... Con Edison.
Destec Energy, Inc................................. Destec Energy.
El Paso Natural Gas Company........................ El Paso.
Enron Interstate Pipelines (Northern Natural Gas Enron.
Company, Transwestern Pipeline Company, and
Florida Gas Transmission Company).
Exxon Corporation.................................. Exxon.
Fuel Managers Association.......................... FMA.
Hadson Gas Systems, Inc............................ Hadson.
Independent Petroleum Association of America....... IPAA.
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America...... INGAA.
Koch Gateway Pipeline Company...................... KGPL.
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation............... National.
National Registry of Capacity Rights............... National Registry.
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America............ Natural.
Natural Gas Supply Association..................... NGSA.
New York Mercantile Exchange and Enersoft NYMEX/EnerSoft.
Corporation.
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.......... NYSEG.
Northwest Pipeline Corporation..................... Northwest.
O&R Energy, Inc.................................... O&R.
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, North Shore Gas Peoples Gas, et al.
Company, and Northern Illinois Gas Company.
Process Gas Consumers Group, American Iron and Process Gas
Steel Institute, and Georgia Industrial Group. Consumers Group.
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin............. PSCW.
Sabine Pipe Line Company........................... Sabine.
Southern California Edison Company................. Edison.
Tenneco Gas........................................ Tenneco.
Texaco, Inc........................................ Texaco.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Panhandle PEC Pipeline Group.
Eastern Pipe Line Company, Trunkline Gas Company,
and Algonquin Gas Transmission Company.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation......... Transco.
UGI Utilities, Inc................................. UGI.
United Distribution Companies...................... UDC.
Vesta Energy Company............................... Vesta.
Williams Energy Ventures, Inc...................... WEV.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company........ Williston Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\This group includes American Electric Power Service Corporation,
Atlantic City Electric Company, Boston Edison Company, Energy Service,
Inc., Fuel Managers Association, New England Power Service Company,
Northern States Power Company, Northeast Utilities, Potomac Electric
Power Company, Southern Company Services, Virginia Electric and Power
Company, West Texas Utilities Company, and Wisconsin Electric Power
Company.
\82\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. 94-45 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P