Just so you know, this is what I sent Redmond about that 311 case.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Hull, Bryan  
Sent:	Tuesday, August 14, 2001 7:16 AM
To:	Redmond, Brian
Subject:	FW: Section 311

Brian, this is a pretty good explanation of the case thus far......

Commissioner Wood is aware of the conflict between PG&E (now EPGT) and Southern Union, probably because of lobbying by Southern Union, and that is why he raised the issue.  Southern Union states in its initial brief (#9 below) that it opposes the high demand rates that it says EPGT proposes to charge for a service that does not incorporate the consumer protections of Order No. 636 and argues that FERC should impose Order No. 636 standards on PG&E.  I was watching a video stream of the meeting, and the whole discussion seemed to come out of nowhere.  


Here are the facts in this case.

1)	On December 20, 1999, PG&E Texas Pipeline, LP (the predecessor to EPGT Texas Pipeline, LP) filed a petition with FERC for approval of transportation rates under Section 311 along , as they were required to do.  (All intrastate pipelines that perform Section 311 service must either have their rates approved by FERC or they must charge rates that are approved by a state regulatory body for a similar service.)  PG&E's filing proposed, in addition to the usual interruptible service, a firm Section 311 service as well as an interruptible parking and lending service.  PG&E also filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions to reflect the new services.

2)	On February 25, 2000, Southern Union Gas Company, an intrastate transportation customer of PG&E, filed a late motion to intervene and raised issues which it stated should be addressed in a hearing.  PG&E opposed the late intervention, but FERC granted it on April 14, 2000.  (PG&E stated that Southern Union was intervening in order to gain leverage in renegotiating its contract for intrastate service.)

3)	Southern Union submitted data requests to PG&E on April 13 and April 17.  PG&E attempted to get a protective order issued, but FERC rejected their request.

4)	A settlement conference was held on September 7, 2000.

5)	A Staff Panel was convened on October 2, 2000, in order to conduct an advisory, non-evidentiary proceeding for oral arguments on the issues, with instructions to make recommendations to the Commission within 90 days.

6)	On November 1,  2000, FERC requested 5 pages of additional information from PG&E in order to complete the application in the proceeding, which PG&E provided on November 8th.  On December 8th, PG&E provided additional information in response to a FERC data request.

7)	On January 10, 2001, Southern Union submitted a proposed alternative to the cost of service and rate design that was filed by PG&E.

8)	On January 17, El Paso Field Services informed FERC that PG&E Texas Pipeline, LP had been acquired by El Paso on December 22, 2000, and that the name was changed to EPGT Texas Pipeline, LP.  

9)	On January 24, 2001, EPGT Texas and Southern Union filed initial briefs.  

10)	On July 17, 2001, EPGT filed supplemental comments in response to the discussion at FERC summarized below, where Commissioner Wood inquired about the extension of some Order No. 636 and 637 provisions to Section 311 service providers.  EPGT stated that, if FERC proceeds with this policy, it should do so in a generic rulemaking and not in an individual pipeline proceeding.  On July 30, 2001, Southern Union filed reply comments opposing EPGT's supplemental comments.

11)	On August 3, EPGT filed an amended Statement of Operating Conditions, which provides for electronic nominations, two additional nomination cycles, bumping, clarified and updated credit provisions, modified quality provisions to protect system integrity, and more clearly defined authorized overrun service.

The NGPA gives FERC authority over intrastate pipeline rates for Section 311 service and requires that such service be provided on a non-discriminatory basis, but there is some question as to whether it gives FERC authority to require, for example, compliance with Order Nos. 636 and 637.   

Please let me know if this is enough detail (or maybe it's more than you wanted!!).