Bummer.  Thanks for the quick answer.  The Maritimes case does give us at 
least a small foothold to use.  DF


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           02/04/2000 11:08 AM
	

To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: sstojic@gbmdc.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com 

Subject: Re: Gallup request for rehearing  

My several hours of on-line research on this last Sept. turned up nothing on 
point.  The only case that even addressed the issue of confidentiality of 
contracts in a certificate context was one I'll excerpt here:

**
 In Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., 80 FERC P 61,346 (1997), 
Maritimes requested confidentiality for the precedent agreements it 
submitted. Commission staff denied the blanket request, but indicated that 
Maritimes could request that specific provisions be kept confidential. 
Maritimes subsequently requested that the contract terms and various cut-off 
dates [FN29] in the precedent agreements be kept confidential because such 
information was commercially sensitive. On the other hand, Maritimes 
requested that the terms and conditions of the backstop agreements be kept 
confidential, but was willing to make the contract terms of 10 and 20 years 
public. Generally, the Commission will deny blanket requests for 
confidentiality of agreements that are submitted to demonstrate market 
support for new facilities. [FN30] However, in the instance case, the 
contract terms of the backstop agreements are public and, thus, evidence of 
longterm subscriptions for Maritimes proposal are in the public record and 
support our finding that Maritimes has demonstrated a market for its proposed 
services. Therefore, we find no compelling reason to require the length of 
the terms of the other precedent agreements or the cut-off dates to be made 
public. 

FN29 Cut off dates refer to points in time when individual contracts could 
terminate contingent on the
occurrence of certain events.

FN30 See, e.g., Colorado Interstate Gas Company, 76 FERC P 61,291 (1996).
**

In Amoco Production Company and Amoco Energy Trading Company V. Natural Gas 
Pipeline Company of America, 82 FERC P 61,037 (1998), which involved a 
request for confidentiality of a gas sales agreement, the Commission 
explained why a gas sales agreement should be given confidential treatment 
but transportation contracts should not:  

the Commission has explicitly held that gas transportation rates stand on a 
different
footing from gas sales rates because pipelines and their competitors are 
subject to similar disclosure
requirements. In ANR Pipeline Co., the Commission explained that unlike gas 
sales in a
competitive market, transportation of natural gas is still regulated under 
the assumption that the pipeline
exercises market power. Even where transportation competition exists, that 
competition is from other
pipelines that are likely to be subject to similar filing and reporting 
requirements. 

There were several cases denying confidential treatment of rates in the 
context of Section 4 cases.  

Just to make sure I found everything, I'll do some follow up sometime in the 
next few days and let you know if I find anything. 


   
	
	
	From:  Drew Fossum                           02/04/2000 10:43 AM
	

To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine 
Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Donna Martens/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay 
Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Keith Petersen/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, sstojic@gbmdc.com, 
fkelly@gbmdc.com 

Subject: Re: Gallup request for rehearing  

Susan's draft has inspired me to vent months worth of frustration at the 
Commission.  To save Susan from trying to translate my weird scribbles, I'm 
having Martha type up my vitriol.  Please hold off on detailed comments on 
Susan's draft unless you've already finished them.  I'll circulate a revised 
draft to you all later today.  In the mean time, Susan and Frank and Steve, 
are there not some cases in which the Commission has specifically granted 
confidential treatment of precedent agreements or discount agreements in 
expansion cases.  I know the bulk of authority is against us, but I seem to 
recall at least a few stray decisions where the Commission granted confid. 
treatment (even if only for a limited time).  Lets talk.  Thanks. DF 


   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           02/03/2000 03:52 PM
	

To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin 
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Donna 
Martens/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Keith 
Petersen/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: sstojic@gbmdc.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com 

Subject: Gallup request for rehearing

Here is the attachment...


---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 02/03/2000 
03:51 PM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Susan Scott                           02/03/2000 03:51 PM
	

To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin 
Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Donna 
Martens/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Keith 
Petersen/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc: sstojic@gbmdc.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com 

Subject: Gallup request for rehearing

Attached is my draft of a request for rehearing.  It incorporates Mr. 
Stojic's and Mr. Kelly's initial comments.  Please review it and let me know 
if you have any comments on or before Tuesday afternoon (I will be out of the 
office Monday).  Thank you!