UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION El Paso Natural Gas Company ) Docket No. RP10-1398-000 BRIEF ON EXCEPTIONS OF TEXAS GAS SERVICE COMPANY, A DIVISION OF ONEOK, INC. Kathleen L. Mazure Jason T. Gray Natalie M. Karas Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C. 1615 M Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-6370 telephone (202) 467-7379 facsimile Submitted August 7, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... iii I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................................................................1 II. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................4 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................9 IV. NUMBERED EXCEPTIONS .............................................................................10 V. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WARRANTING FULL COMMISSION REVIEW...................................................................................12 VI. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................15 A. Article 11.2 of the 1996 Settlement. ........................................................15 1. Consistent with Commission precedent, the Commission should reject the ALJs finding that there is no Article 11.2(a) shortfall. ....................................................................................................18 2. The ALJ erred in failing to address, and reject, EPNGs proposed bifurcated cost of service. .......................................................25 3. The Commission should hold that EPNG may not collect from eligible Article 11.2 contracts rates that exceed the Article 11.2 rate due to any rate design changes for non-Article 11.2 contracts....................................................................................................27 4. It was error and not the product of reasoned decisionmaking for the ALJ to fail to address Issue IX.F, i.e., whether EPNG has satisfied the 4,000 MMcf/day Article 11.2(b) presumption. ..........30 5. The ALJ erred in failing to determine that EPNG did not demonstrate that it has otherwise met the requirements of Article 11.2(b)...........................................................................................33 6. It was error and not the product of reasoned decisionmaking for the ALJ to fail to establish a revenue credit given that EPNG failed to satisfy the 4,000 MMcf/day presumption....................37 7. The Commission should reject EPNGs proposal regarding the Article 11.2(b) rights of successors-in-interest to Article 11.2 contracts....................................................................................................40 a. Consistent with the finding in the March 20 Order that Article 11.2(b) applies to shippers and not to
For complete details, download the full document: Download
Pages: 91