β Scribed by Smead, Richard G.
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
he Commission's January 31 policy state-'T ment adopting a negotiated/recourse approach to setting pipeline rates and further exploring the possibility of allowing the negotiation of pipeline terms and conditions of service has been extraordinarily controversial so far. In part, I believe the level of controversy is less a reflection of great policy issues, and more a symptom of boredom among the lawyers and economists dealing with pipeline regulatory issues. After the raging debates of Order 636 implementation and the challenge of restructuring the entire industry around a new economic model, the primary issues for the last year or so had seemed pretty tame. They involved things like standardization of how many gigabytes should be used to communicate nomination confirmations, how many hours shippers should have to change a nomination, how a pipeline invoice should look, and when testimony should be filed in a rate case. The great thinkers gazed longingly at the electric industry, which was just joining horns for huge, global economic arguments.
Probably the hardest part of the last year for some of the great thinkers, at least in Washington, was that the industry was pretty much getting along together. Order 636 implementation, especially the things done to ensure reliability through the transition, brought the industry together as never before, to make things work. Such a lack of conflict can reduce
Committee of the American Gas Association.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES