|
|
Enron Mail |
Bummer. Thanks for the quick answer. The Maritimes case does give us at
least a small foothold to use. DF From: Susan Scott 02/04/2000 11:08 AM To: Drew Fossum/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: sstojic@gbmdc.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com Subject: Re: Gallup request for rehearing My several hours of on-line research on this last Sept. turned up nothing on point. The only case that even addressed the issue of confidentiality of contracts in a certificate context was one I'll excerpt here: ** In Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., 80 FERC P 61,346 (1997), Maritimes requested confidentiality for the precedent agreements it submitted. Commission staff denied the blanket request, but indicated that Maritimes could request that specific provisions be kept confidential. Maritimes subsequently requested that the contract terms and various cut-off dates [FN29] in the precedent agreements be kept confidential because such information was commercially sensitive. On the other hand, Maritimes requested that the terms and conditions of the backstop agreements be kept confidential, but was willing to make the contract terms of 10 and 20 years public. Generally, the Commission will deny blanket requests for confidentiality of agreements that are submitted to demonstrate market support for new facilities. [FN30] However, in the instance case, the contract terms of the backstop agreements are public and, thus, evidence of longterm subscriptions for Maritimes proposal are in the public record and support our finding that Maritimes has demonstrated a market for its proposed services. Therefore, we find no compelling reason to require the length of the terms of the other precedent agreements or the cut-off dates to be made public. FN29 Cut off dates refer to points in time when individual contracts could terminate contingent on the occurrence of certain events. FN30 See, e.g., Colorado Interstate Gas Company, 76 FERC P 61,291 (1996). ** In Amoco Production Company and Amoco Energy Trading Company V. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 82 FERC P 61,037 (1998), which involved a request for confidentiality of a gas sales agreement, the Commission explained why a gas sales agreement should be given confidential treatment but transportation contracts should not: the Commission has explicitly held that gas transportation rates stand on a different footing from gas sales rates because pipelines and their competitors are subject to similar disclosure requirements. In ANR Pipeline Co., the Commission explained that unlike gas sales in a competitive market, transportation of natural gas is still regulated under the assumption that the pipeline exercises market power. Even where transportation competition exists, that competition is from other pipelines that are likely to be subject to similar filing and reporting requirements. There were several cases denying confidential treatment of rates in the context of Section 4 cases. Just to make sure I found everything, I'll do some follow up sometime in the next few days and let you know if I find anything. From: Drew Fossum 02/04/2000 10:43 AM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Donna Martens/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Keith Petersen/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, sstojic@gbmdc.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com Subject: Re: Gallup request for rehearing Susan's draft has inspired me to vent months worth of frustration at the Commission. To save Susan from trying to translate my weird scribbles, I'm having Martha type up my vitriol. Please hold off on detailed comments on Susan's draft unless you've already finished them. I'll circulate a revised draft to you all later today. In the mean time, Susan and Frank and Steve, are there not some cases in which the Commission has specifically granted confidential treatment of precedent agreements or discount agreements in expansion cases. I know the bulk of authority is against us, but I seem to recall at least a few stray decisions where the Commission granted confid. treatment (even if only for a limited time). Lets talk. Thanks. DF From: Susan Scott 02/03/2000 03:52 PM To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Donna Martens/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Keith Petersen/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: sstojic@gbmdc.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com Subject: Gallup request for rehearing Here is the attachment... ---------------------- Forwarded by Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron on 02/03/2000 03:51 PM --------------------------- From: Susan Scott 02/03/2000 03:51 PM To: Drew Fossum@ENRON, Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Hyatt/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Lorraine Lindberg/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Donna Martens/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Mary Kay Miller/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Keith Petersen/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: sstojic@gbmdc.com, fkelly@gbmdc.com Subject: Gallup request for rehearing Attached is my draft of a request for rehearing. It incorporates Mr. Stojic's and Mr. Kelly's initial comments. Please review it and let me know if you have any comments on or before Tuesday afternoon (I will be out of the office Monday). Thank you!
|