[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10623]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 4, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 

Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Gas Supply Realignment Costs; 
Supplemental Notice

Docket No. PL94-1-000 (previously docketed as Docket No. RM94-12-000)
April 26, 1994.
    On March 30, 1994, the Commission issued a notice (59 FR 16198, 
April 6, 1994) scheduling a public conference on May 26, 1994 in RM94-
12-000 to examine the use of pricing differential mechanisms by 
interstate natural gas pipelines to recover gas supply realignment 
costs. The Commission is redocketing this proceeding as Docket No. 
PL94-1-000.
    At the conference, the Commission would be interested in hearing 
commenters' views on the following issues:
    1. The pricing differential mechanisms were designed to lessen the 
pipelines' costs of renegotiating gas supply contracts. The theory was 
that providing pipelines a means to honor existing contracts while they 
were being renegotiated would be less expensive for consumers than 
requiring contracts to be bought out immediately. Has this theory been 
validated?
    2. How are the pricing differential cost (PDC) mechanisms 
functioning?
    a. What impact, if any, do the PDC mechanisms have on pipelines' 
renegotiations with producers?
    b. While the pipelines have been recovering PDCs, what percentage 
of their overall contract volumes and costs have been finally resolved?
    3. What impact, if any, does the two-year authorization have on the 
use of the PDC mechanisms? What type of review should the Commission 
undertake to evaluate specific PDC mechanisms if a pipeline seeks to 
extend the authorization? If the Commission were to extend a pipeline's 
2-year authorization period, what effect would that have on your 
response to question 1?
    4. Are there alternatives to the PDC mechanisms?
    a. If so what are they?
    b. What impact would these alternatives have on the timing of cost 
recovery?
    5. There are various procedural ways the Commission can deal with 
subsequent quarterly PDC filings where the first filing has been set 
for hearing. Possible alternative approaches include: establishing new 
hearings; consolidating new filings with the existing hearing; or, 
making subsequent filings subject to the first proceeding. Are there 
other approaches that should also be considered?
    The Commission will provide for remote viewing of the conference in 
Hearing Room 1, 810 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. In addition, if 
there is sufficient interest, the Capitol Connection may broadcast the 
conference in the Washington, DC metropolitan area or nationally. Those 
interested in the local or national television broadcast should call 
The Capitol Connection at (703) 993-3100 no later than May 4, 1994. 
Requests from viewers outside of Washington, DC should be directed to 
Julia Morelli or Shirley Al-Jarani.
    Any person who wishes to make a formal presentation to the 
Commission should submit a written request to the Secretary of the 
Commission no later than May 2, 1994. Written statements to accompany 
oral presentations are welcomed, but not required. Persons providing 
written statements should file 15 copies of the statement with the 
Office of the Secretary by May 16, 1994, and 100 copies at least one 
hour prior to their oral presentation.
    All questions concerning the format of the technical conference 
should be directed to: Mary Hain, Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Room 4010J, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 208-2143.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-10623 Filed 5-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P