โ Scribed by Grenier, Edward J.
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
In this column in June 1987, I wrote about the FERC's broad proposal to permit the brokering of firm capacity on interstate pipeline systems (FERC's Docket No. RM88-13-000). Last summer, after receiving extensive comments on the proposal, the commission held a wideranging, in-depth technical conference, exploring all aspects of the proposal. Fundamental. questions, such as what is the capacity that may be brokered, were discussed and left largely unresolved. Serious issues concerning the extent of competitiveness at various delivery points (i.e., in various markets) were also raised, but left unresolved,
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES
Frederick Moring is a partner in Crowell & Moring, a Washington, OC, law firm speciaziring in energy law pro& kms. He has practiced natural gar law since 1961. He is a former pnsidcnt of the Federal Energy Bar Association.
A year ago, we noted (Nanual Gas, September 1988) that the original initiative on capacity brokering issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was
On May 10, the FERC held its public conference to explore comparability of service. the pipeline service obligation, a market-based pipeline merchant function, and just about evexythmg else under the regulatory sun. One of the questions the commission asked was whether capacity brokering should be
New questions have arisen as the FERC continues to lead the natural gas industry towards the implementation of capacity-brokering mechanisms on interstate pipelines. In recent orders focusing on the proposals of Texas Eastem Transmission Corporation and reiterated in a Transcontinental Gas pipe Line