Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation, et al., Docket No. IS89-7-000, et al. Order Granting Intervention; Finding No Additional Hearing or Procedural Steps Required; and Setting Date for Motions to be Filed (Issued January 30, 1991) Jacob Leventhal, Presiding Administrative Law Judge. Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation, ARCO Pipe Line Company, BP Pipelines Inc., Exxon Pipeline Company, Mobil Alaska Pipeline Company, Phillips Alaska Pipeline Corporation, and Unocal Pipeline Company filed tariffs and tariff supplements with a proposed effective date of January 1, 1991. These filings are made to comply with the decision of the Commission in Trans Alaska Pipeline System, 29 FERC 61,123 (1984). In that decision, the Commission approved a settlement agreement that prescribed a methodology for computing the level of the Quality Bank adjustment. See Id. at p. 61,239. Protests were filed by Conoco Inc. and Oxy USA, Inc. and Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company. As a result the Oil Pipeline Board ruled: The Board is aware the hearing in Docket No. IS89-7-000 et al. has recently been concluded and is now pending the filing of briefs to the presiding judges. Since the issues raised by the Protestants in the current filing are the same as the issues being considered in the ongoing proceeding and the Commission has already instituted an investigation of the Quality Bank in Docket No. IS89-7-000 et al., Docket No. IS91-13-000 et al. is consolidated with that investigation and hearing, and made subject to its out come. 53 FERC 62,287.. The Board then ordered: (C) The investigation of Docket No. IS91-13-000 et al. shall be consolidated with the proceeding in Docket No. IS89-7-000 et al., in which the issues are identical to those raised in this proceeding. Motions to intervene out of time were filed by Petro Star Inc. and by Exxon U.S.A. on December 26 and 28, 1990, respectively. No answers opposing the motions have been filed. For good cause shown the motions are granted. Because these proceedings have been consolidated with Docket No. IS89-7-000 et al. and made subject to its outcome, all parties who have intervened in that proceedings are granted intervention in this docket as well. It does not appear that any additional hearings are required nor that any additional procedural steps are needed. Any party who disagrees may file an appropriate motion requesting whatever relief it deems necessary. The deadline for such a filing is February 15, 1991. It is so ordered. [¶ 63,010] Trans Alaska Pipeline System, Docket No. OR89-2-000 et al. (Issued January 30, 1991) Jacob Leventhal, Presiding Administrative Law Judge. Motions proposing transcript corrections have been timely filed by a number of participants. A post hearing conference was held on January 15, 1991, to resolve several disputes Party State of Alaska (Revised) B.P. Exploration (Alaska) Inc.. Conoco Inc. and Oxy U.S.A. Inc. (Revised) These proceedings are being held concurrently with similar intrastate proceedings of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission in APUC Dockets P-89-1 and regarding proposed corrections. As a result of the conference, parties have resolved their differences. The following transcript corrections are now unopposed and are accepted: Pacific Gas Transmission Company, Docket Nos. RP87-62-000, RP86-148-000, and RP90-109-000 Order Requiring Further Trial Stipulation (Issued February 13, 1991) Bruce L. Birchman, Presiding Administrative Law Judge. Consonant with Rules 385.504(a)(4),(b)(1),(4),(9),(14),(17), and (20), 385.505, 385.508 (e), 385.509(a), and 385.601, the parties and staff are directed to confer and, as necessary and appropriate, further stipulate to the withdrawal of unnecessary testimony. Issues such as those next highlighted appear to concern law and/or policy, and not genuine issues of material fact, are in the nature of argument, and are appropriate in pre-trial briefs, post-trial briefs, and oral argument. For example, the revised estimate of time for cross-examination dated January 29, 1991 indicates that approximately 1 and 1/2 days will be devoted to cross-examination of PGT witness Howard and staff witness Goodman. PGT witness Howard testifies as PGT's overall policy witness. Principally, Howard provides an overview of the areas of responsibility for each of PGT's expert witnesses and identifies those elements of policy that are testified at length by PGT's expert witnesses. Howard's supplemental direct testimony generally describes PGT's compliance filing, a matter of which official notice can be taken, and the details of which Howard acknowledges are discussed by PGT's expert witnesses. Howard's rebuttal testimony delineates areas of agreement and disagreement in the case, a matter which is covered by the stipulation of issues proposed by the parties and staff and adopted by the undersigned and will be further delineated by the pre-trial briefs and the expert testimony itself. Staff witness Goodman testifies, inter alia, on the propriety of using rolled-in costing for the pre-build facilities. (As does PGT's witness Williams' in his rebuttal testimony of Goodman on this matter.) Additionally, we dwelled on this matter at length at the last hearing. Indeed, Goodman and Williams exhume partial relics of those testimonies. In the circumstances, the parties and staff shall confer, review all proffered testimony to ensure that proffered evidence comports with the Rules of Practice, and file with me by February 28, 1991, two copies of any necessary further trial stipulations, including further stipulated withdrawals of proffered evidence. [¶ 63,012] Northern Natural Gas Company, Division of Enron Corporation, Docket Nos. RP88-259-000, RP89-136-000, CP89-1227-000, RP90-124-000, and RP90-161-000 Order Denying Late Intervention (Issued February 5, 1991) Bruce L. Birchman, Presiding Administrative Law Judge. On January 18, 1991, Westar Transmission Company (Westar) filed a motion for late intervention. Northern Natural filed an answer in opposition on February 4, 1991. For the reasons next stated, and, on balance, I find that good cause is not present to grant the motion and permit intervention out of time. The motion is denied. Westar is an exempt Hinshaw pipeline and a sales and transportation customer of Northern Natural. Westar states that it has an interest in the proceeding because it is the largest firm sales customer in the field area. Westar does not state the nature of its interest in intervening at this late date. Westar states, however, that this unknown interest can not be adequately represented by any other party. Westar's ownership is said to have changed on November 1, 1989 or slightly more than one year after Northern Natural made a section 4 rate filing in the lead docket. Westar also states that for reasons unknown its former owners did not seek intervention in the lead docket or in the major rate restructuring proceeding in Docket No. CP89-1227-000 which was consolidated with the lead docket on October 26, 1989. Westar is willing to accept the record as it stands. These proceedings have a lengthy serpentine procedural history. The proceedings have been the subject of 5 separate consolidation orders. On or subsequent to each occasion additional interventions were granted by the Commission or the undersigned. Of necessity, the trial schedule was repeatedly revised to accommodate new issues and new parties. More than two and a third years have passed since the inception of these proceedings. All evidentiary cases have been filed-direct, supplemental direct, and a further direct case dealing with compliance with the rate design policy statement, answering cases, cross-answering cases, rebuttal cases, and surrebuttal cases. All that remains if trial is to ensue is the filing of pretrial briefs and the commencement of trial on or after March 13, 1991. Until three weeks ago, Westar evinced no interest in any of these developments. On the other hand, the consolidated proceedings also appear to be on the verge of settlement. At the conclusion of the last informal settlement conference on January 31, 1991, the parties and staff advised me of their hope to file an offer of settlement with the Commission by mid-March if several matters are confirmed. For clarity, the following significant developments occurred in 1989 without Westar's evincing any interest. Docket No. RP89-136-000, involving issues of take or pay was consolidated with the lead docket on July 7, 1989. Of necessity, the trial schedule was revised to accommodate new issues. A partial uncontested offer of settlement and a question posed by the undersigned was certified on August 2, 1989 [48 FERC 63,014]. Following remand, the settlement was recertified on September 11, 1989. The settlement was approved by the Commission on December 29, 1989 [49 FERC ¶ 61,437]. On October 6, 1989, the Commission consolidated Docket No. CP89-1227-000, a major rate restructuring, with the already consolidated proceedings. Of necessity, the trial schedule was revised to accommodate new issues. A late intervention was granted by me on November 22, 1989, a point in time almost three weeks after Westar's ownership is said to have changed. Westar did not seek like relief. On January 23, 1990, the Commission consolidated Docket No. CP89-1951-000 with these proceedings. Further trial procedures to accommodate the new issues were deferred as Northern Natural had advised me of its intention to withdraw the application. On January 30, 1990, Northern Natural withdrew the application. Westar was not among the numerous sales and transportation customers that were granted intervention in that consolidated proceeding. A further partial uncontested offer of settlement was certified by me on March 14, 1990. Westar did not seek to intervene. On June 29, 1990, the Commission further consolidated Docket No. RP90-14-000 with the thrice consolidated proceedings. Of necessity, the trial schedule was further revised to accommodate the new issues. A stipulation of issues was adopted to govern adjudication, and further late intervention was granted. Westar did not seek to intervene. Another partial uncontested offer of settlement involving an interim GIC was certified by me on July 26, 1990 and approved by the Commission on September 19, 1990 [52 FERC ¶ 61,296], Westar did not seek to intervene. On September 13, 1990, the Commission issued its fourth consolidation order [52 FERC 61,258]. Docket No. RP90-161-000 was consolidated with these consolidated proceedings. Of necessity, the trial schedule was revised to accommodate new issues. Westar did not seek to intervene or express any interest in the proposed and revised nomination procedures. On September 25, 1990, I certified an uncontested partial offer of settlement which supplemented the settlement certified on July 25, 1990. Westar did not intervene. The trial schedule was further revised during October and again in November 1990 to accommodate possible settlement of complex fractious proceedings. Additional late interventions were granted. Westar, now under new ownership, did not intervene. Westar's request for late intervention comes more than two years after the commencement of these proceedings; after repeated consolidations of other cases which entailed complex and diverse issues; after additional interventions by other customers and state commissions; and after repeated efforts of the parties at settlement of various issues and several certifications of settlements by the undersigned. Westar's former and current management did not seek to intervene and remained mute during all of these permutations. Based on the latest information from the participants, the consolidated proceedings should settle. Westar is unable to state why its former ownership took no interest in these proceedings. Westar has not stated what its interest is in intervening at this late date. Westar's claim that its interest can not be adequately represented is belied by the active participa tion of numerous sales customers, numerous transportation customers, numerous state commissions, and the ever ubiquitous Commission staff. Based on the information imparted to me by all of the active participants, there appears to be a good chance to settle this case and put it to bed. Westar's intervention at this late date and its injection into the concluding settlement negotiations poses a high probability of serious disruption to an amicable resolution. Settlement of protracted disputes is consonant with Commission policy. Westar's intervention in these proceedings at this late date, under the circumstances, could prove to be fractious, unduly complicate settlement of these complex proceedings, and prove unduly prejudicial to settlement of the case. Denial of intervenor status does not preclude Westar from filing settlement comments in the event that settlement is achieved. On the other hand, Westar's intervention is not needed. Its unstated and unexplained interest is more than adequately represented by numerous sales customers, numerous transportation customers, numerous state commission, and by Commission staff in the event that settlement falters and the case goes to trial soon. On balance, I conclude that good cause has not been shown under Rule 212 to grant the motion. The motion is denied. [¶ 63,013] Trans Alaska Pipeline System, Docket No. OR89-2-000 et al. (Issued February 6, 1991) Jacob Leventhal, Presiding Administrative Law Judge. The State of Alaska (Alaska), by motion filed February 1, 1991, requests an extension of time to file initial and reply briefs to February 28, 1991 and April 22, 1991, respectively. Alaska represents that none of the active parties oppose the requested extension. For good cause shown, the motion is granted. The time for filing briefs is now established as follows: Initial Briefs-February 28, 1991 [¶ 63,014] Southern Natural Gas Company, Dockets Nos. RP89-224-003, RP89-203-006, and RP90-139-005 Certification of Contested Offer of Interim Partial Settlement (Issued February 7, 1991) Joseph R. Nacy, Administrative Law Judge. 1 These proceedings are being held concurrently with similar intrastate proceedings of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission in APUC Dockets P-89-1 and P-89-2. Separate orders containing the same ruling are being issued by each judge. On December 28, 1990, Southern Natural Gas Company ("SNG") submitted an offer of settlement calculated to provide an interim resolution of the issues regarding eligibility for service under its G rate schedule, while offering all parties the opportunity to litigate those issues in the ongoing proceedings in Docket Nos. RP89-224-000, RP89-203-000, and RP90-139-000.1 The periods for filing comments and reply comments have expired. See Rule 602(f)(2). The following, which fall into four categories, have been brought to my attention: 1. Comments supporting the offer and urging its present certification and ultimate approval, filed by: a) Water Works, Gas and Sewer Board of the City of Piedmont, Ala. (“Piedmont"); b) The City of Lanett, Ala. ("Lanett"); c) The City of Jacksonville, Ala. ("Jacksonville"); d) Alabaster Water and Gas Board of the City of Alabaster, Ala. (“Alabaster"); e) SNG; f) (Jointly) Alabama Municipal Distributors Group and Georgia Municipal Association Gas Section (collectively "the Municipals"); and g) The Utilities Board of the City of Oneonta, Ala. ("Oneonta"). 2. Comments taking a neutral stance (because the commenters are not G rate customers of SNG) filed by: a) Mississippi Valley Gas Company ("MVG"); b) Arcadian Corporation ("Arcadian"); c) (Jointly) Georgia Industrial Group ("GIP") and Occidental Chemical Corporation ("Occidental"); d) Indicated Shippers; and e) The Board of Water, Gas & Light Commissioners of the City of Albany, Ga. ("Albany"). 3. Comments either supporting the offer or taking a neutral stance, but seeking the imposition of conditions on approval, filed by: a) Atlanta Gas Light Company (“AGL"); b) South Carolina Pipeline Corporation ("SCP"); c) (Jointly) Utilities Board of the City of Pleasant Grove, Ala., and the Jasper Utilities Board of Jasper, Ala. (collectively "the Alabama Boards") (late-filed); and d) Alabama Gas Corporation ("Alagasco")(late-filed). 1 By order issued February 1, 1991 at 54 FERC [61,099, the Commission consolidated these proceed 4. Reply comments supporting the offer filed by: a) The Municipals; and b) SNG. The first, second, and fourth categories of comments require no analysis. They cannot be construed as raising any obstacle to certification. They simply do not contest the offer. The third, though, must be examined and discussed. AGL is not a G rate customer of SNG, and neither supports nor contests the offer in so many words. It does, however, seek the Commission's imposition of a condition that SNG, alone, "be at risk for any undercollection of revenues resulting from the rate reduction and the abandonments provided under the [offer] and that in no event shall such costs be shifted to [SNG's] Rate Schedule OCD customers." This position of AGL has been treated as a formal contest since it does not accept the offer on the offer's own terms. SCP is similarly situated. While it neither supports nor contests the offer, it also seeks the imposition of conditions: (1) freedom from limitation on the retroactive effect of any refunds from G rate customers, and (2) freedom from any effect on SCP's rights and positions (a) with respect to any abandonment SNG may file to effectuate release of capacity under the offer, or (b) in any rate proceeding which may be affected by the abandonment of such capacity. This is not an unconditional acceptance of the offer, so it has been treated as a formal contest. The Alabama Boards are G rate customers of SNG. They accuse SNG of refusing to allow them to participate in the settlement as such unless their customer, Alagasco, is also considered to be a "Supporting Customer" under the terms of the offer, and unless Alagasco accepts the retroactive surcharge provisions of article III of the offer. They support the offer and pray that SNG be required to treat them as "Supporting Customers" with all related rights. These comments also amount to a formal contest since they appear to seek an alteration of the offer's terms. The same must be said of the comments of Alagásco. It supports the Alabama Boards' comments and asks that SNG not be permitted to coerce Alagasco into giving up its rights to refunds under the Natural Gas Act with respect to SNG's Rate Schedules OCD-2 and FT-2 as a condition of the Alabama Boards' participation in the present settlement, which applies to small customers under SNG's Rate Schedule G. ings with No. RP91-69-000. This offer of settlement is not, to my knowledge, affected by that proceeding. |