Petition for Rulemaking To Update Commission Regulations Regarding Allocation of Interstate Pipeline Capacity, 22097-22101 [2024-06562]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Consumer or Commercial Debts,’’ with
the applicant, and the form must be
signed by the applicant.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1955—PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT
4. The authority citations for part
1955 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42
U.S.C. 1480.
PART 3560—DIRECT MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING LOANS AND GRANTS
Subpart C—Disposal of Inventory
Property
■
6. The authority citation for part 3560
continues to read as follows:
5. Amend § 1955.118 by revising
paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(8)(iii), and
(b)(11) to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1480.
■
§ 1955.118 Processing cash sales or MFH
credit sales on nonprogram terms.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Processing. Purchasers requesting
credit on NP terms will be required to
submit documentation to establish
financial stability, repayment ability,
and creditworthiness. Standard forms
used to process program applications
may be utilized or comparable
documentation may be accepted from
the purchaser with the servicing official
having the discretion to determine what
information is required to support loan
approval for the type of property
involved. Individual credit reports will
be ordered for each individual applicant
and each principal within an applicant
entity in accordance with subpart R of
part 3560. Commercial credit reports
will be ordered for profit corporations
and partnerships, and organizations
with a substantial interest in the
applicant entity in accordance with
subpart R of part 3560.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Term of note. The note amount
will be amortized over a period not to
exceed 10 years. If the Leadership
Designee determines more favorable
terms are necessary to facilitate the sale,
the note amount may be amortized
using a 30-year factor with payment in
full (balloon payment) due not later
than 10 years from the date of closing.
In no case will the term be longer than
the period for which the property will
serve as adequate security.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) * * *
(iii) The Agency will provide the
closing agent with the necessary
information for closing the sale. The
assistance of OGC will be requested to
provide closing instructions for all MFH
sales.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Form RD 1910–11, ‘‘Applicant
Certification, Federal Collection Policies
for Consumer or Commercial Debts.’’
The Agency must review Form RD
1910–11, ‘‘Applicant Certification,
Federal Collection Policies for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
Subpart A—General Provisions and
Definitions
7. Amend § 3560.11 by adding the
definition of Comprehensive Credit
Report in alphabetical order.
■
§ 3560.11
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Current Comprehensive Credit Report.
A credit report no older than 6 months
from the date of issuance, that contains
details of both current open credit
accounts and closed accounts, and that
is provided by one of the three
accredited major credit bureaus
(Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—Direct Loan and Grant
Origination
8. Amend § 3560.56 by revising
paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:
■
§ 3560.56 Processing section 515 housing
proposals.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(5) An analysis of current credit
reports in accordance with subpart R of
this part.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart I—Servicing
9. Amend § 3560.405 by adding
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
■
§ 3560.405 Borrower organizational
structure or ownership interest changes.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Borrowers must submit a credit
report in accordance with subpart R of
this part.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Amend § 3560.406 by adding
paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
§ 3560.406
sales.
MFH ownership transfers or
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) A credit report in accordance with
subpart R of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22097
Subpart Q—[Reserved]
11. Add and reserve subpart Q,
consisting of §§ 3560.801 through
3560.850.
■ 12. Add subpart R to read as follows:
■
Subpart R—Credit Report
Requirements
Sec.
3560.851
3560.852
§ 3560.851
General.
Requirements.
General.
This subpart contains the Agency’s
credit reporting requirements for all
Multifamily (MFH) programs.
§ 3560.852
Requirements.
When required to submit a credit
report under any provision of this part,
such submission must include a current
comprehensive credit report for both the
entity and the individual principals,
partners, members, and the individual
sub-entities or natural persons who are
responsible for controlling the
ownership and operations of the
applicant entity, including but not
limited to principals, partners, or
members. The Agency will also accept
combination comprehensive credit
reports which provide a comprehensive
view of the applicant’s credit profile by
combining data from all three major
credit bureaus (Experian, Equifax, and
TransUnion).
Joaquin Altoro,
Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–06596 Filed 3–28–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 284
[Docket No. RM22–17–000]
Petition for Rulemaking To Update
Commission Regulations Regarding
Allocation of Interstate Pipeline
Capacity
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In this Petition for
rulemaking, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
seeks additional information concerning
the practices of interstate natural gas
pipelines related to the packaging of
non-contiguous and/or operationally
unrelated segments of capacity in a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
22098
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
single auction or open season and the
aggregation of bids across those
segments to determine the highest value
bid for the purpose of allocating
capacity, as well as comment on
whether the Commission should
continue to allow such practices.
DATES: Comments are due June 27, 2024,
and reply comments are due July 29,
2024.
Comments, identified by
docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing
through https://www.ferc.gov, is
preferred.
• Electronic Filing: Documents must
be filed in acceptable native
applications and print-to-PDF, but not
in scanned or picture format.
• For those unable to file
electronically, comments may be filed
by USPS mail or by hand (including
courier) delivery.
Æ Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only:
Addressed to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
Æ Hand (including courier) Delivery:
Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
The Comment Procedures Section of
this document contains more detailed
filing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Liow (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Market Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, 202–502–
6459
David Faerberg (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, 202–502–8275
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. In this Petition for rulemaking, the
Commission seeks information
concerning the practices of interstate
natural gas pipelines related to the
packaging of non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments of
capacity in a single auction or open
season and the aggregation of bids
across those segments to determine the
highest value bid for the purpose of
awarding capacity, as well as comment
on whether the Commission should
continue to allow such practices.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on: (1) additional information
and data on interstate natural gas
pipeline posting practices related to the
packaging of non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments of
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
capacity in a single auction or open
season; (2) relevant information that
bears on whether the Commission
should reconsider its policy; and (3)
what regulatory, economic, or policy
goals would or would not be achieved
by modifying the current policy.
I. Background
2. Pursuant to the Commission’s
regulations, a pipeline must post
available firm capacity on its website as
it becomes available.1 The pipeline may
sell that capacity in several nondiscriminatory ways, such as through a
first-come, first-served or auction
method. Prior to pipelines proposing
tariff provisions detailing how they
would evaluate bids for capacity, most
pipelines simply allocated capacity on a
first-come, first-served basis. Pursuant
to this approach, ‘‘[t]he first shipper to
submit a request received the available
capacity, even if the shipper requested
service for only a few days or weeks
while others sought transportation for
longer periods.’’ 2
3. While some pipelines still use a
first-come, first-served method, it is now
more common for pipelines to use an
auction method to award available
capacity. Under this approach, and
consistent with the terms of their tariffs,
pipelines can conduct an open season
announcing available capacity and
stating criteria for an acceptable bid, the
method for determining the best bid,
and the bid closing date.3 Pipelines
evaluate capacity bids submitted during
the open season timeframe on a net
present value (NPV) basis, which is the
discounted cash flow of incremental
revenues that the pipeline receives that
are based upon such factors as the price,
term, and quantity of transportation
service.
4. The Commission allows pipelines
to include multiple segments (including
non-contiguous and/or operationally
unrelated segments) of capacity together
in an open season for the purposes of
accepting and aggregating bids to
1 18
CFR 284.13(d)(1).
Gas Consumers Grp. v. FERC, 292 F.3d
831, 833 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Process Gas Consumers).
3 The Commission does not require pipelines to
sell capacity solely through open seasons. So long
as the pipeline posts all available firm capacity, it
may sell that capacity on a first-come, first-served
basis depending on the pipeline’s tariff. Tenn. Gas
Pipeline Co., 119 FERC ¶ 61,126, at P 20 (2007)
(citing N. Nat. Gas Co., 110 FERC ¶ 61,361, at P 10
(2005)). The Commission has provided pipelines
with some degree of flexibility in how they market
their capacity to accomplish the goal of enabling
those who value capacity the most to obtain it,
because the Commission assumes that the pipeline
will generally seek the highest possible rate from
those to whom it sells capacity, since that is in the
pipeline’s economic interest. See, e.g., ANR
Pipeline Co., 116 FERC ¶ 61,201, at P 9 (2006).
2 Process
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determine NPV and award the capacity
to the highest bidder.4 Bid values for
each capacity segment cannot be greater
than the maximum recourse rate for that
segment. Moreover, shippers are not
required to bid on all segments posted
in the open season. However, a
competing shipper willing to bid on
multiple or all segments of the posting
may generate a higher NPV and
therefore become the winning bidder.
For example, a shipper choosing to bid
the maximum recourse rate on a single
segment of desired capacity would
generate an NPV based on the
incremental revenues from the
maximum recourse rate on the term of
that segment, but a competing shipper
willing to bid on multiple or all
segments posted by the pipeline may
generate a higher NPV.5 The
Commission has allowed the inclusion
of non-contiguous and/or operationally
unrelated segments in capacity postings
because the practice allows the pipeline
to sell more capacity than it otherwise
would, potentially benefiting shippers
in the long run. Specifically, the
Commission has found that maximum
revenues and increased use of pipeline
capacity will increase billing
determinants and thereby lower unit
fixed costs in a pipeline’s next rate
case.6
5. The Commission, and subsequently
the D.C. Circuit, have addressed issues
concerning the competitive effects of the
NPV evaluation in a narrower context
and have maintained that capacity
should be awarded to the bid with the
highest valuation. This arose with
respect to the length of the contract term
in a proposal submitted by Tennessee
Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee). The
court upheld the Commission’s decision
to accept Tennessee’s proposed NPV
evaluation method for awarding
pipeline capacity, which included no
cap on the term of the contract in the
NPV evaluation. The pipeline argued
that, under this approach, it would be
able to ‘‘award firm capacity to those
shippers who value the capacity most—
that is, since rates are capped, to those
shippers offering the longest
contracts.’’ 7 The court stated, ‘‘. . . as
[the Commission] argues, the fact that
shippers may at times bid up contract
length likely reflects not an exercise of
Tennessee’s market power, but rather
4 N. Border Pipeline, 164 FERC ¶ 61,150 (2018)
(Northern Border); Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co.,
LLC, 172 FERC ¶ 61,258 (2020) (Transco).
5 Northern Border, 164 FERC ¶ 61,150 at P 23,
Transco, 172 FERC ¶ 61,258 at P 15.
6 Northern Border, 164 FERC ¶ 61,150 at P 24.
7 Process Gas Consumers, 292 F.3d at 833.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
competition for scarce capacity.’’ 8 The
court supported the Commission’s
conclusion that ‘‘an uncapped bidding
process maximizes market efficiency by
identifying which shipper is willing to
pay the most—in terms of contract
length—to obtain such capacity.’’ 9
II. Petition
6. On June 22, 2022, in Docket No.
RM22–17–000, American Gas
Association (AGA), American Public
Gas Association (APGA), Process Gas
Consumers Group (PGC), and Natural
Gas Supply Association (NGSA)
(collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition
requesting that the Commission initiate
a rulemaking to consider precluding
interstate natural gas pipelines from
aggregating bids on non-contiguous and/
or operationally unrelated capacity
segments to determine the highest value
bid for the purpose of allocating
capacity (Petition).
7. Petitioners assert that the interstate
natural gas pipeline practice of
packaging high market value capacity
with non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated parcels of
capacity that Petitioners consider to be
unwanted capacity with little or no
market value is becoming increasingly
commonplace in the market. Petitioners
submit that this practice results in
unjust and unreasonable rates, distorts
market pricing, removes the incentive
for pipelines to build more capacity
where needed, and constitutes illegal
tying. Petitioners further contend that
this practice effectively denies many
shippers access to needed capacity and,
as a practical matter, results in undue
discrimination against industrial gas
consumers, municipal gas systems, and
local distribution utilities. They also
allege that this practice results in higher
prices for the ultimate gas consumers.
Petitioners state that the Commission
has only previously considered this
issue within the narrow context of tariff
filings by individual pipelines and not
on a generic basis. Petitioners request
that the Commission initiate a
rulemaking to consider new regulations
that would prevent interstate natural gas
pipelines from continuing the practice
of: (1) packaging non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments of
capacity in auctions; and (2) awarding
capacity based on an NPV basis that
includes the aggregate bids.
8 Id. at 837 (noting that, even under an NPV
allocation method, the Commission regulates the
rates pipelines may charge and requires them to sell
available capacity at those rates, such that there is
neither the legal ability to withhold existing
capacity nor an incentive to refuse to build new
capacity).
9 Id. at 838.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
8. Notice of the Petition was issued on
June 15, 2022. Interventions, protests,
and comments were due on or before
July 18, 2022. The notice did not
provide for reply comments. Supporting
comments were filed by seven entities.10
Comments in opposition or protests
were filed by five entities.11
III. Commission Staff Informal Survey
9. In 2019, in response to outreach
from stakeholders concerned about bid
aggregation for non-contiguous capacity
postings,12 Commission staff (Staff)
surveyed short-term capacity postings
publicly available on 50 pipelines’
Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBB).13 Staff
identified a total of 98 firm capacity
auction postings.14 Staff performed a
similar informal survey in August 2023,
reviewing publicly available capacity
postings from most of the same
pipelines but with some substitutions.
Staff identified a total of 85 firm
capacity auction postings.15 In its
review, Staff focused on determining the
frequency with which the pipelines
offered non-contiguous paths available
for bidding because such postings could
reflect the practices opposed by the
Petitioners. For the surveyed periods in
2019 and 2023, Staff identified 11
10 1.5C, LLC, bp Energy Company, Interstate
Power and Light Company, Continental Resources,
Inc., and the Indicated Shippers (Ascent ResourcesUtica, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Marketing, L.L.C.,
ConocoPhillips Company, Continental Resources,
Inc., and XTO Energy Inc.). Sabine Pass
Liquefaction, LLC and the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners also filed late
comments in support of the Petition.
11 Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
(INGAA), Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
LLC (Transco), Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern Natural), Kinder Morgan, Inc. (Kinder
Morgan), and ANR Pipeline Company and Northern
Border Pipeline Company (jointly) (ANR and
Northern Border).
12 According to comments filed by Indicated
Shippers in the RM22–17–000 Petition for
Rulemaking, high market value capacity can be
considered ‘‘jewel’’ and capacity with little or no
market or operational value can be considered
‘‘junk.’’ As argued in the Petition, Indicated
Shippers assert that interstate natural gas pipelines
can use ‘‘jewel’’ capacity to extract additional
revenues for the ‘‘junk’’ capacity from those placing
bids on the combined packages of ‘‘junk’’ and
‘‘jewel’’ capacity, distorting the value of the
packages and resulting in higher prices for natural
gas consumers. Indicated Shippers Comments at 2–
3. We use the phrase ‘‘junk and jewel’’ to refer to
this scenario throughout the document.
13 We note that pipelines are only required to
publicly provide informational postings on their
EBBs for 90 days. 18 CFR 284.13(b). After the 90
days, pipelines are required to archive this
information for a period of three years. 18 CFR
284.12(a)(3)(v).
14 In conducting its survey, Staff did not examine
postings related to new expansions, right-of-firstrefusal, receipt point shifts, and reserving capacity.
15 As noted above, in conducting its survey, Staff
did not examine postings related to new
expansions, right-of-first-refusal, receipt point
shifts, and reserving capacity.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22099
examples and 7 examples, respectively,
of postings for non-contiguous paths for
which the rules of the pipeline’s NPV
analysis stated that parties could
increase the NPV of bids by bidding on
additional segments of capacity.
However, Staff could not determine
whether any of these examples reflect
the packaging of high-value capacity
with low-value capacity criticized by
the Petitioners because Staff did not
analyze the market value of any paths.
IV. Request for Comments
10. As part of ensuring that the
Commission continues to meet its
statutory obligations, the Commission,
on occasion, engages in public inquiry
to gauge whether there is a need to add
to, modify, or eliminate certain policies
or regulatory requirements. Following
our review of the Petition and of Staff’s
2019 and 2023 surveys, we are issuing
this NOI to examine the practices of
interstate natural gas pipelines related
to the packaging of non-contiguous and/
or operationally unrelated segments of
capacity in a single auction or open
season and the aggregation of bids
across those segments to determine the
highest value bid for the purpose of
awarding capacity, as well as whether
the Commission should continue to
allow such practices. We invite
comments from interested persons on
what, if any, policy changes the
Commission should implement, as well
as the potential impacts of any such
policy changes.
11. We invite interested persons to
submit comments and reply comments
on any or all of the questions listed
below. Commenters need not respond to
all of the questions.
A. Frequency of the Inclusion of
Aggregated Non-Contiguous Segments
in Capacity Postings
A1. In the Docket No. RM22–17–000
Petition for Rulemaking, Petitioners
provided 15 examples of what they
describe as ‘‘junk and jewel’’ postings
from 2018 through 2022. If available,
please provide the Commission with
any more recent examples of postings
pairing desirable, high-value capacity
with unwanted, low-value capacity.
Explain, with supporting data if
possible, whether there has been a
change in frequency of such postings
since the filing of the Petition. Is the
publicly available information on
pipelines’ EBBs sufficient to identify the
frequency with which pipelines offer
non-contiguous and/or operationally
unrelated paths for aggregated bidding?
A2. Please comment on the frequency
with which shippers who were allowed
to bid on multiple segments of capacity
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
22100
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
were awarded capacity in the auction
despite bidding on only a portion of the
posted capacity.
A3. It appears that the examples of
‘‘junk and jewel’’ scenarios provided by
the Petition only include short-term
(less than one year) capacity auctions.
Please provide information that might
explain why these scenarios are mostly
occurring with short-term capacity
auctions. If available, please provide
specific examples of postings for longterm (equal to or greater than one year)
capacity that use bid aggregation with
non-contiguous and/or operationally
unrelated segments of capacity.
A4. Please provide information on
how and why non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments are
chosen to package together in the same
open season. Comment as to what extent
capacity that Petitioners label as ‘‘junk’’
is still required to serve certain markets.
A5. Please explain if there are any
seasonal trends for available capacity
postings, particularly for any noncontiguous paths that appear together in
postings. What are the times of year at
which these situations occur for shortterm, seasonal, and long-term capacity?
What, if any, market conditions (time of
year, pipeline-specific business
practices, market scenarios, etc.) elevate
the potential for pipelines to post
capacity with bid aggregation for noncontiguous and/or operationally
unrelated capacity postings?
B. Impacts of Bid Aggregation on
Pipeline Rates
B1. Please explain whether and how
shippers do or do not receive the benefit
of a rate reduction related to capacity
awards of short-term capacity in rate
cases (i.e., including billing
determinants and revenues in the test
period, along with selection of the test
period itself). Provide examples from
specific rate cases if possible. Include
information about distance-based
allocation and zoned billing
determinants.
B2. Petitioners claim that current
Commission policy allows for pipelines
to collect revenue from shippers above
the Commission-approved maximum
tariff rates by packaging high-value
segments with non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated low-value
segments. Please explain in more detail.
If this practice is effectively allowing
pipelines to collect over the maximum
tariff rate, then please provide other
methods for awarding capacity desired
by multiple customers.
C. Customers and Operational Need
C1. Petitioners argue that LDCs,
municipal gas systems, and industrial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
customers have an operational need for
segments of capacity to serve LDC load
or a power plant or manufacturing
facility but, due to various constraints,
cannot justify bidding on other
segments of the ‘‘effectively tied’’
capacity that they do not need for their
customers. Given the short-term nature
of the example contracts cited by
Petitioners, please describe how these
short-term contracts would help meet
long-term load growth and please
explain alternative solutions employed
by these entities to meet their load
growth and/or long-term supply needs.
C2. Please explain or provide specific
examples of how certain shippers such
as LDCs and municipal gas systems
might not have the creditworthiness to
bid on multiple unrelated paths to
increase their chance of winning
valuable capacity or how they might be
subject to a prudence review from state
regulators for bidding on noncontiguous and/or operationally
unrelated capacity packages.
C3. Please explain to what extent
industrial customers are prohibited from
bidding on non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated capacity
packages.
D. Potential Policy Changes
D1. Please comment on whether the
Commission should change its current
policy, which allows bid aggregation on
non-contiguous segments so long as
shippers are not required to bid on
undesired segments of capacity. Explain
any issues that the Commission should
consider when determining whether to
make this policy change. What policy
and/or regulation changes should the
Commission implement if it determines
that it should no longer allow interstate
natural gas pipelines to package noncontiguous and/or operationally
unrelated segments of capacity in an
open season? Explain any additional
issues that the Commission should
consider if it were to make this policy
change (e.g., how should the
Commission determine whether
segments of capacity are non-contiguous
and/or operationally unrelated, etc.).
Additionally, please provide any
potential alternative policy change and
explain how it would be implemented.
D2. Explain how a policy change
might affect short-term capacity
auctions and how it would affect
shippers (e.g., LDCs, marketers,
producers, etc.) and interstate natural
gas pipelines. Explain any interactions
between this policy and the
Commission’s negotiated rate policy.16
16 Nat.
Gas Pipelines Negotiated Rate Policies &
Pracs.; Modification of Negotiated Rate Pol’y, 104
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. Comment Procedures
12. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments and reply
comments on the matters and issues
addressed in this document, including
any related matters or alternative
proposals that commenters may wish to
discuss. Comments are due June 27,
2024 and reply comments are due July
29, 2024. Comments must refer to
Docket No RM22–17–000 and must
include the commenter’s name, the
organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address in their
comments.
13. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
website at https://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard
word-processing formats. Documents
created electronically using wordprocessing software should be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
14. Commenters that are not able to
file comments electronically may file an
original of their comment by USPS mail
or by courier or other delivery services.
For submissions sent via USPS only,
filings should be mailed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office
of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Submission of
filings other than by USPS should be
delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
VI. Document Availability
15. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov).
16. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
17. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s website
during normal business hours. For
assistance, please contact the
Commission’s Online Support at 202–
FERC ¶ 61,134 (2003), order on reh’g and
clarification, 114 FERC ¶ 61,042, reh’g dismissed
and clarification denied, 114 FERC ¶ 61,304 (2006).
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Proposed Rules
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659 or email
at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717z, 3301–3432;
42 U.S.C. 7101–7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331–1356.
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: March 21, 2024.
Debbie-Anne Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–06562 Filed 3–28–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
[REG–123376–22]
RIN 1545–BQ74
Disclosures of Return Information
Reflected on Returns to Officers and
Employees of the Department of
Commerce, Including the Bureau of the
Census, for Certain Statistical
Purposes and Related Activities
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document contains
proposed amendments to the
regulations relating to the disclosure of
specified return information to the
Bureau of the Census (Bureau). The
proposed amendments would ensure
the efficient and appropriate transfer of
return information to the Bureau and
would permit the disclosure of
additional return information pursuant
to a request from the Secretary of
Commerce. These proposed regulations
would require no action by taxpayers
and would have no effect on their tax
liabilities.
DATES: Electronic or written comments
and request for a public hearing must be
received by April 29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Commenters are strongly
encouraged to submit public comments
electronically. Submit electronic
submissions via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and
REG–123376–22) by following the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Requests for a public hearing
must be submitted as prescribed in the
‘‘Comments and Requests for a Public
Hearing’’ section. Once submitted to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments
cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
Department of the Treasury (Treasury
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
Department) and the IRS will publish
for public availability any comments
submitted electronically or on paper to
the IRS’s public docket. Send paper
submissions to CC:PA:01:PR (REG–
123376–22), Room 5203, Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the proposed regulations,
Elizabeth Erickson of the Office of the
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and
Administration), at (202) 317–6834;
concerning submissions of comments
and requests for a public hearing, Vivian
Hayes, at (202) 317–6901 (not toll-free
numbers) or by sending an email to
publichearings@irs.gov (preferred).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains proposed
amendments to the Procedure and
Administration Regulations, 26 CFR
part 301, relating to section 6103(j)(1)(A)
of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
Section 6103(j)(1)(A) of the Code
authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury
or her delegate (Secretary) to furnish,
upon written request by the Secretary of
Commerce, such returns or return
information as the Secretary may
prescribe by regulation to officers and
employees of the Bureau for the purpose
of, but only to the extent necessary in,
the structuring of censuses and national
economic accounts and conducting
related statistical activities authorized
by law.
There is a long history of providing
return information to the Bureau under
section 6103(j)(1)(A), and the
regulations promulgated under this
section have been amended periodically
to increase the amount of return
information provided to facilitate the
statistical activities of the Bureau. See
e.g., TD 9037, 68 FR 2693, January 21,
2003; TD 9188, 70 FR 12141, March 11,
2005; TD 9267, 71 FR 38263, July 6,
2006; TD 9372, 72 FR 73262, December
27, 2007; TD 9439, 73 FR 79361,
December 29, 2008; TD 9500, 75 FR
52459, August 26, 2010; TD 9631, 78 FR
52857, August 27, 2013; TD 9754, 81 FR
9767, February 26, 2016; TD 9856, 84
FR 14011, April 9, 2019.
The existing regulations under section
6103(j)(1)(A) are set forth in 26 CFR
301.6103(j)(1)–1 (existing
§ 301.6103(j)(1)–1). They authorize the
Bureau to receive return information
that supports many different Bureau
projects and programs, including the
Economic Census, the Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics
program, and the Small Area Income
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22101
and Poverty Estimates program, among
others.
Pursuant to section 6103(p)(4), the
IRS sets stringent privacy and security
requirements for agencies receiving
return information, including the
Bureau. These requirements are
currently detailed in IRS Publication
1075, Tax Information Security
Guidelines For Federal, State and Local
Agencies. See also, § 301.6103(p)(4)–1.
Explanation of Provisions
By letter dated February 29, 2024, the
Secretary of Commerce requested
amendments to existing
§ 301.6103(j)(1)–1 to allow disclosure of
additional items of return information to
the Bureau to enable the Bureau to
perform mission critical statistical
functions. The Secretary of Commerce
further stated that the additional items
would allow the Bureau to conduct its
economic, demographic, decennial, and
research statistics programs, censuses,
and related program evaluations. The
amendments to the existing regulations
would permit the Bureau to publish
statistical information, enhance the use
of administrative records, improve the
quality of program estimates, and
support the reduction of burden. The
Secretary of Commerce’s letter lists the
additional items of return information
requested based on the Bureau’s specific
need for each item of information.
The Secretary of Commerce asserted
that good cause exists to amend existing
§ 301.6103(j)(1)–1 to add the requested
items to the list of items of return
information that may be disclosed to the
Bureau. The Treasury Department and
the IRS agree that amending existing
§ 301.6103(j)(1)–1 to permit disclosure
of these items to the Bureau is
appropriate to meet the needs of the
Bureau.
Accordingly, the proposed regulations
would amend the existing regulations to
authorize disclosure of additional return
information and reorganize the list of
items that may be disclosed to the
Bureau to allow the IRS more
administrative flexibility when
providing the authorized return
information.
The proposed regulations would also
permit the disclosure of return
information if an item of return
information currently listed in the
regulations is subsequently reported in
a substantially similar format or on a
substantially similar document.
Complications can occur when a data
element in the regulations is described
as located on a particular document and
that document is later updated or
superseded. For example, the
regulations under section 6103(j) allow
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22097-22101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06562]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 284
[Docket No. RM22-17-000]
Petition for Rulemaking To Update Commission Regulations
Regarding Allocation of Interstate Pipeline Capacity
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Petition for rulemaking, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) seeks additional information concerning the
practices of interstate natural gas pipelines related to the packaging
of non-contiguous and/or operationally unrelated segments of capacity
in a
[[Page 22098]]
single auction or open season and the aggregation of bids across those
segments to determine the highest value bid for the purpose of
allocating capacity, as well as comment on whether the Commission
should continue to allow such practices.
DATES: Comments are due June 27, 2024, and reply comments are due July
29, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov, is
preferred.
Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
[cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
[cir] Hand (including courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more
detailed filing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine Liow (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-6459
David Faerberg (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, 202-502-8275
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. In this Petition for rulemaking, the Commission seeks
information concerning the practices of interstate natural gas
pipelines related to the packaging of non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments of capacity in a single auction or
open season and the aggregation of bids across those segments to
determine the highest value bid for the purpose of awarding capacity,
as well as comment on whether the Commission should continue to allow
such practices. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on: (1)
additional information and data on interstate natural gas pipeline
posting practices related to the packaging of non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments of capacity in a single auction or
open season; (2) relevant information that bears on whether the
Commission should reconsider its policy; and (3) what regulatory,
economic, or policy goals would or would not be achieved by modifying
the current policy.
I. Background
2. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations, a pipeline must post
available firm capacity on its website as it becomes available.\1\ The
pipeline may sell that capacity in several non-discriminatory ways,
such as through a first-come, first-served or auction method. Prior to
pipelines proposing tariff provisions detailing how they would evaluate
bids for capacity, most pipelines simply allocated capacity on a first-
come, first-served basis. Pursuant to this approach, ``[t]he first
shipper to submit a request received the available capacity, even if
the shipper requested service for only a few days or weeks while others
sought transportation for longer periods.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 18 CFR 284.13(d)(1).
\2\ Process Gas Consumers Grp. v. FERC, 292 F.3d 831, 833 (D.C.
Cir. 2002) (Process Gas Consumers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. While some pipelines still use a first-come, first-served
method, it is now more common for pipelines to use an auction method to
award available capacity. Under this approach, and consistent with the
terms of their tariffs, pipelines can conduct an open season announcing
available capacity and stating criteria for an acceptable bid, the
method for determining the best bid, and the bid closing date.\3\
Pipelines evaluate capacity bids submitted during the open season
timeframe on a net present value (NPV) basis, which is the discounted
cash flow of incremental revenues that the pipeline receives that are
based upon such factors as the price, term, and quantity of
transportation service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commission does not require pipelines to sell capacity
solely through open seasons. So long as the pipeline posts all
available firm capacity, it may sell that capacity on a first-come,
first-served basis depending on the pipeline's tariff. Tenn. Gas
Pipeline Co., 119 FERC ] 61,126, at P 20 (2007) (citing N. Nat. Gas
Co., 110 FERC ] 61,361, at P 10 (2005)). The Commission has provided
pipelines with some degree of flexibility in how they market their
capacity to accomplish the goal of enabling those who value capacity
the most to obtain it, because the Commission assumes that the
pipeline will generally seek the highest possible rate from those to
whom it sells capacity, since that is in the pipeline's economic
interest. See, e.g., ANR Pipeline Co., 116 FERC ] 61,201, at P 9
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Commission allows pipelines to include multiple segments
(including non-contiguous and/or operationally unrelated segments) of
capacity together in an open season for the purposes of accepting and
aggregating bids to determine NPV and award the capacity to the highest
bidder.\4\ Bid values for each capacity segment cannot be greater than
the maximum recourse rate for that segment. Moreover, shippers are not
required to bid on all segments posted in the open season. However, a
competing shipper willing to bid on multiple or all segments of the
posting may generate a higher NPV and therefore become the winning
bidder. For example, a shipper choosing to bid the maximum recourse
rate on a single segment of desired capacity would generate an NPV
based on the incremental revenues from the maximum recourse rate on the
term of that segment, but a competing shipper willing to bid on
multiple or all segments posted by the pipeline may generate a higher
NPV.\5\ The Commission has allowed the inclusion of non-contiguous and/
or operationally unrelated segments in capacity postings because the
practice allows the pipeline to sell more capacity than it otherwise
would, potentially benefiting shippers in the long run. Specifically,
the Commission has found that maximum revenues and increased use of
pipeline capacity will increase billing determinants and thereby lower
unit fixed costs in a pipeline's next rate case.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ N. Border Pipeline, 164 FERC ] 61,150 (2018) (Northern
Border); Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 172 FERC ] 61,258 (2020)
(Transco).
\5\ Northern Border, 164 FERC ] 61,150 at P 23, Transco, 172
FERC ] 61,258 at P 15.
\6\ Northern Border, 164 FERC ] 61,150 at P 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The Commission, and subsequently the D.C. Circuit, have
addressed issues concerning the competitive effects of the NPV
evaluation in a narrower context and have maintained that capacity
should be awarded to the bid with the highest valuation. This arose
with respect to the length of the contract term in a proposal submitted
by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee). The court upheld the
Commission's decision to accept Tennessee's proposed NPV evaluation
method for awarding pipeline capacity, which included no cap on the
term of the contract in the NPV evaluation. The pipeline argued that,
under this approach, it would be able to ``award firm capacity to those
shippers who value the capacity most--that is, since rates are capped,
to those shippers offering the longest contracts.'' \7\ The court
stated, ``. . . as [the Commission] argues, the fact that shippers may
at times bid up contract length likely reflects not an exercise of
Tennessee's market power, but rather
[[Page 22099]]
competition for scarce capacity.'' \8\ The court supported the
Commission's conclusion that ``an uncapped bidding process maximizes
market efficiency by identifying which shipper is willing to pay the
most--in terms of contract length--to obtain such capacity.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Process Gas Consumers, 292 F.3d at 833.
\8\ Id. at 837 (noting that, even under an NPV allocation
method, the Commission regulates the rates pipelines may charge and
requires them to sell available capacity at those rates, such that
there is neither the legal ability to withhold existing capacity nor
an incentive to refuse to build new capacity).
\9\ Id. at 838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petition
6. On June 22, 2022, in Docket No. RM22-17-000, American Gas
Association (AGA), American Public Gas Association (APGA), Process Gas
Consumers Group (PGC), and Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA)
(collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition requesting that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking to consider precluding interstate
natural gas pipelines from aggregating bids on non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated capacity segments to determine the highest
value bid for the purpose of allocating capacity (Petition).
7. Petitioners assert that the interstate natural gas pipeline
practice of packaging high market value capacity with non-contiguous
and/or operationally unrelated parcels of capacity that Petitioners
consider to be unwanted capacity with little or no market value is
becoming increasingly commonplace in the market. Petitioners submit
that this practice results in unjust and unreasonable rates, distorts
market pricing, removes the incentive for pipelines to build more
capacity where needed, and constitutes illegal tying. Petitioners
further contend that this practice effectively denies many shippers
access to needed capacity and, as a practical matter, results in undue
discrimination against industrial gas consumers, municipal gas systems,
and local distribution utilities. They also allege that this practice
results in higher prices for the ultimate gas consumers. Petitioners
state that the Commission has only previously considered this issue
within the narrow context of tariff filings by individual pipelines and
not on a generic basis. Petitioners request that the Commission
initiate a rulemaking to consider new regulations that would prevent
interstate natural gas pipelines from continuing the practice of: (1)
packaging non-contiguous and/or operationally unrelated segments of
capacity in auctions; and (2) awarding capacity based on an NPV basis
that includes the aggregate bids.
8. Notice of the Petition was issued on June 15, 2022.
Interventions, protests, and comments were due on or before July 18,
2022. The notice did not provide for reply comments. Supporting
comments were filed by seven entities.\10\ Comments in opposition or
protests were filed by five entities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 1.5C, LLC, bp Energy Company, Interstate Power and Light
Company, Continental Resources, Inc., and the Indicated Shippers
(Ascent Resources-Utica, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Marketing, L.L.C.,
ConocoPhillips Company, Continental Resources, Inc., and XTO Energy
Inc.). Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners also filed late comments in support
of the Petition.
\11\ Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA),
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), Northern
Natural Gas Company (Northern Natural), Kinder Morgan, Inc. (Kinder
Morgan), and ANR Pipeline Company and Northern Border Pipeline
Company (jointly) (ANR and Northern Border).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Commission Staff Informal Survey
9. In 2019, in response to outreach from stakeholders concerned
about bid aggregation for non-contiguous capacity postings,\12\
Commission staff (Staff) surveyed short-term capacity postings publicly
available on 50 pipelines' Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBB).\13\ Staff
identified a total of 98 firm capacity auction postings.\14\ Staff
performed a similar informal survey in August 2023, reviewing publicly
available capacity postings from most of the same pipelines but with
some substitutions. Staff identified a total of 85 firm capacity
auction postings.\15\ In its review, Staff focused on determining the
frequency with which the pipelines offered non-contiguous paths
available for bidding because such postings could reflect the practices
opposed by the Petitioners. For the surveyed periods in 2019 and 2023,
Staff identified 11 examples and 7 examples, respectively, of postings
for non-contiguous paths for which the rules of the pipeline's NPV
analysis stated that parties could increase the NPV of bids by bidding
on additional segments of capacity. However, Staff could not determine
whether any of these examples reflect the packaging of high-value
capacity with low-value capacity criticized by the Petitioners because
Staff did not analyze the market value of any paths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ According to comments filed by Indicated Shippers in the
RM22-17-000 Petition for Rulemaking, high market value capacity can
be considered ``jewel'' and capacity with little or no market or
operational value can be considered ``junk.'' As argued in the
Petition, Indicated Shippers assert that interstate natural gas
pipelines can use ``jewel'' capacity to extract additional revenues
for the ``junk'' capacity from those placing bids on the combined
packages of ``junk'' and ``jewel'' capacity, distorting the value of
the packages and resulting in higher prices for natural gas
consumers. Indicated Shippers Comments at 2-3. We use the phrase
``junk and jewel'' to refer to this scenario throughout the
document.
\13\ We note that pipelines are only required to publicly
provide informational postings on their EBBs for 90 days. 18 CFR
284.13(b). After the 90 days, pipelines are required to archive this
information for a period of three years. 18 CFR 284.12(a)(3)(v).
\14\ In conducting its survey, Staff did not examine postings
related to new expansions, right-of-first-refusal, receipt point
shifts, and reserving capacity.
\15\ As noted above, in conducting its survey, Staff did not
examine postings related to new expansions, right-of-first-refusal,
receipt point shifts, and reserving capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Request for Comments
10. As part of ensuring that the Commission continues to meet its
statutory obligations, the Commission, on occasion, engages in public
inquiry to gauge whether there is a need to add to, modify, or
eliminate certain policies or regulatory requirements. Following our
review of the Petition and of Staff's 2019 and 2023 surveys, we are
issuing this NOI to examine the practices of interstate natural gas
pipelines related to the packaging of non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments of capacity in a single auction or
open season and the aggregation of bids across those segments to
determine the highest value bid for the purpose of awarding capacity,
as well as whether the Commission should continue to allow such
practices. We invite comments from interested persons on what, if any,
policy changes the Commission should implement, as well as the
potential impacts of any such policy changes.
11. We invite interested persons to submit comments and reply
comments on any or all of the questions listed below. Commenters need
not respond to all of the questions.
A. Frequency of the Inclusion of Aggregated Non-Contiguous Segments in
Capacity Postings
A1. In the Docket No. RM22-17-000 Petition for Rulemaking,
Petitioners provided 15 examples of what they describe as ``junk and
jewel'' postings from 2018 through 2022. If available, please provide
the Commission with any more recent examples of postings pairing
desirable, high-value capacity with unwanted, low-value capacity.
Explain, with supporting data if possible, whether there has been a
change in frequency of such postings since the filing of the Petition.
Is the publicly available information on pipelines' EBBs sufficient to
identify the frequency with which pipelines offer non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated paths for aggregated bidding?
A2. Please comment on the frequency with which shippers who were
allowed to bid on multiple segments of capacity
[[Page 22100]]
were awarded capacity in the auction despite bidding on only a portion
of the posted capacity.
A3. It appears that the examples of ``junk and jewel'' scenarios
provided by the Petition only include short-term (less than one year)
capacity auctions. Please provide information that might explain why
these scenarios are mostly occurring with short-term capacity auctions.
If available, please provide specific examples of postings for long-
term (equal to or greater than one year) capacity that use bid
aggregation with non-contiguous and/or operationally unrelated segments
of capacity.
A4. Please provide information on how and why non-contiguous and/or
operationally unrelated segments are chosen to package together in the
same open season. Comment as to what extent capacity that Petitioners
label as ``junk'' is still required to serve certain markets.
A5. Please explain if there are any seasonal trends for available
capacity postings, particularly for any non-contiguous paths that
appear together in postings. What are the times of year at which these
situations occur for short-term, seasonal, and long-term capacity?
What, if any, market conditions (time of year, pipeline-specific
business practices, market scenarios, etc.) elevate the potential for
pipelines to post capacity with bid aggregation for non-contiguous and/
or operationally unrelated capacity postings?
B. Impacts of Bid Aggregation on Pipeline Rates
B1. Please explain whether and how shippers do or do not receive
the benefit of a rate reduction related to capacity awards of short-
term capacity in rate cases (i.e., including billing determinants and
revenues in the test period, along with selection of the test period
itself). Provide examples from specific rate cases if possible. Include
information about distance-based allocation and zoned billing
determinants.
B2. Petitioners claim that current Commission policy allows for
pipelines to collect revenue from shippers above the Commission-
approved maximum tariff rates by packaging high-value segments with
non-contiguous and/or operationally unrelated low-value segments.
Please explain in more detail. If this practice is effectively allowing
pipelines to collect over the maximum tariff rate, then please provide
other methods for awarding capacity desired by multiple customers.
C. Customers and Operational Need
C1. Petitioners argue that LDCs, municipal gas systems, and
industrial customers have an operational need for segments of capacity
to serve LDC load or a power plant or manufacturing facility but, due
to various constraints, cannot justify bidding on other segments of the
``effectively tied'' capacity that they do not need for their
customers. Given the short-term nature of the example contracts cited
by Petitioners, please describe how these short-term contracts would
help meet long-term load growth and please explain alternative
solutions employed by these entities to meet their load growth and/or
long-term supply needs.
C2. Please explain or provide specific examples of how certain
shippers such as LDCs and municipal gas systems might not have the
creditworthiness to bid on multiple unrelated paths to increase their
chance of winning valuable capacity or how they might be subject to a
prudence review from state regulators for bidding on non-contiguous
and/or operationally unrelated capacity packages.
C3. Please explain to what extent industrial customers are
prohibited from bidding on non-contiguous and/or operationally
unrelated capacity packages.
D. Potential Policy Changes
D1. Please comment on whether the Commission should change its
current policy, which allows bid aggregation on non-contiguous segments
so long as shippers are not required to bid on undesired segments of
capacity. Explain any issues that the Commission should consider when
determining whether to make this policy change. What policy and/or
regulation changes should the Commission implement if it determines
that it should no longer allow interstate natural gas pipelines to
package non-contiguous and/or operationally unrelated segments of
capacity in an open season? Explain any additional issues that the
Commission should consider if it were to make this policy change (e.g.,
how should the Commission determine whether segments of capacity are
non-contiguous and/or operationally unrelated, etc.). Additionally,
please provide any potential alternative policy change and explain how
it would be implemented.
D2. Explain how a policy change might affect short-term capacity
auctions and how it would affect shippers (e.g., LDCs, marketers,
producers, etc.) and interstate natural gas pipelines. Explain any
interactions between this policy and the Commission's negotiated rate
policy.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Nat. Gas Pipelines Negotiated Rate Policies & Pracs.;
Modification of Negotiated Rate Pol'y, 104 FERC ] 61,134 (2003),
order on reh'g and clarification, 114 FERC ] 61,042, reh'g dismissed
and clarification denied, 114 FERC ] 61,304 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Comment Procedures
12. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments
and reply comments on the matters and issues addressed in this
document, including any related matters or alternative proposals that
commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due June 27, 2024 and
reply comments are due July 29, 2024. Comments must refer to Docket No
RM22-17-000 and must include the commenter's name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
13. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
14. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier or
other delivery services. For submissions sent via USPS only, filings
should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of
the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of
filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
VI. Document Availability
15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov).
16. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
the Commission's Online Support at 202-
[[Page 22101]]
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659 or email at [email protected].
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: March 21, 2024.
Debbie-Anne Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-06562 Filed 3-28-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P