125 FERC ¶ 61,211 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 284 

Docket No. RM08-2-000; Order No. 720 

Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act 

(November 20, 2008) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final Rule 

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Commission adds regulations to require certain 

major non-interstate natural gas pipelines to post daily scheduled volume information and 

design capacity for certain points. The Commission also revises its regulations to require 

interstate natural gas pipelines to post information regarding the provision of no-notice 

service. The posting requirements will facilitate price transparency in markets for the 

sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce to implement 

section 23 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717t-2 (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective [insert date 30 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Ellsworth (Technical) 

Office of Enforcement 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8228 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 2 - 

Gabriel Sterling (Legal) 

Office of Enforcement 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8891 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the 

Natural Gas Act 

Docket No. RM08-2-000 

Order No. 720 

(Issued November 20, 2008) 

Table of Contents 

Page Numbers

I. Introduction and Summary ................................................................................ - 1 -

II. Procedural Background ...................................................................................... - 2 -

III. Authority for the Rule ........................................................................................ - 5 -

A. Posting NOPR ................................................................................................ - 5 -

B. Comments....................................................................................................... - 6 -

C. Commission Determination.......................................................................... - 10 -

IV. Need for the Rule.............................................................................................. - 18 -

A. Posting NOPR.............................................................................................. - 18 -

B. Comments..................................................................................................... - 22 -

C. Commission Determination.......................................................................... - 28 -

V. Pipeline Posting Requirements......................................................................... - 44 -

A. Overview ...................................................................................................... - 44 -

B. Definition of Major Non-Interstate Pipeline ................................................ - 45 -

1. Posting NOPR .............................................................................................. - 45 -

2. Comments..................................................................................................... - 46 -

3. Commission Determination.......................................................................... - 48 -

C. Scheduled Flow Information on Major Non-Interstate Pipelines ................ - 52 -

1. Posting NOPR .............................................................................................. - 52 -

2. Comments..................................................................................................... - 52 -

3. Commission Determination.......................................................................... - 53 -

D. Receipt and Delivery Point Posting for Major Non-Interstate Pipelines...... - 55 -

1. Posting NOPR .............................................................................................. - 55 -

2. Comments..................................................................................................... - 56 -

3. Commission Determination.......................................................................... - 62 -
Docket No. RM08-2-000 ii 

E. Exemptions to the Major Non-Interstate Pipeline Posting Requirements.... - 75 -

1. Non-Interstate Pipelines that are Upstream of a Processing, Treatment, or 

Dehydration Plant......................................................................................... - 76 -

2. Non-Interstate Pipelines that Deliver More than Ninety-Five Percent of 

Volumes to Retail Customers....................................................................... - 81 -

3. Non-Interstate Storage Providers ................................................................. - 87 -

4. Other Exemptions and Safe Harbor.............................................................. - 94 -

F. Posting of No-Notice Service Information by Interstate Pipelines .............. - 99 -

1. Posting NOPR .............................................................................................. - 99 -

2. Comments................................................................................................... - 100 -

3. Commission Determination........................................................................ - 104 -

VI. Effective Date of the Final Rule and Compliance Deadlines......................... - 108 -

VII. Information Collection Statement .................................................................. - 109 -

VIII. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................. - 113 -

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................................................................. - 114 -

X. Document Availability.................................................................................... - 115 -

XI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.............................................. - 116 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; 

 Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, 

 Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. 

Pipeline Posting Requirements under 

Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act 

Docket No. RM08-2-000 

FINAL RULE 

ORDER NO. 720 

(Issued November 20, 2008) 

I. Introduction and Summary

1. This Final Rule implements the Commission’s authority under section 23 of the 

Natural Gas Act (NGA),1

 as added by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005),2 to 

facilitate transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of natural gas in interstate 

commerce by requiring major non-interstate pipelines and interstate pipelines to post 

certain data on their Internet websites. Specifically, the Final Rule requires major noninterstate pipelines, defined as those natural gas pipelines that deliver more than 

50 million MMBtu per year, to post scheduled flow information and to post information 

for each receipt and delivery point with a design capacity greater than 15,000 MMBtu per 

 1

 Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2 (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

2

 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, sections 1261 et seq., 119 Stat. 

594 (2005). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 2 - 

day. The Final Rule also requires that interstate pipelines post information regarding nonotice service. 

2. The postings required here will increase price transparency in the interstate natural 

gas markets by providing information about the supply and demand fundamentals that 

underlie those markets. In this way, the Commission will meet the goal set forth by 

Congress in section 23 of the NGA “to facilitate price transparency in markets for the 

sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce,”3

 and, at the same 

time, will respond to commenters’ concerns about the potential cost and burden of 

posting flow information. 

II. Procedural Background

3. The posting requirements adopted here are grounded in the Commission’s 

authority under section 23 of the NGA (as added by EPAct 2005), which directs the 

Commission, in relevant part, to obtain and disseminate “information about the 

availability and prices of natural gas at wholesale and in interstate commerce.”4

 This 

provision enhances the Commission’s authority to ensure confidence in the nation’s 

natural gas markets. The Commission's market-oriented policies for the wholesale 

natural gas industry require that interested persons have broad confidence that reported 

 3

 Section 23(a)(1) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

4

 Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 3 - 

 

market prices accurately reflect the interplay of legitimate market forces. Without 

confidence in the efficiency of price formation, the true value of transactions is very 

difficult to determine. 

4. On April 19, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Initial NOPR) to explore methods to implement our authority under NGA section 23. In 

the Initial NOPR, the Commission set forth two separate proposals. The first proposal 

addressed an annual reporting requirement for certain natural gas market participants and 

the second proposal addressed a daily requirement for intrastate pipelines to post flow 

information.5

 On December 21, 2007, the Commission bifurcated the proceeding into 

two dockets: the Commission addressed the annual reporting requirement in a Final Rule 

issued in Docket No. RM07-10-000,6

 and addressed the daily posting requirement for 

natural gas pipelines in a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in Docket No. RM08-2-

000 (Posting NOPR). 

5

 Initial NOPR at P 1-2. In this preamble, we use the term “flow information” 

generically to include both scheduled volume information and actual flow information. 

We use the term “scheduled volumes” herein because it is more precise: the terms 

“scheduled flows” or “scheduled flow volumes” could be confused with the term “actual 

flows.” In the Posting NOPR, we used the terms “scheduled flows” and “scheduled flow 

volumes.” 

6 Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act, Order No. 704, 73 

FR 1014 (Jan. 4, 2008), FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,260 (2007), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 704-A, 73 FR 55726 (Sept. 26, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,275 (2008) reh’g 

pending. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 4 - 

 

5. In the Posting NOPR, we proposed to require both interstate and certain major 

non-interstate pipelines to post on public Internet websites capacity, daily scheduled flow 

and daily actual flow information. The proposal required posting of capacity and daily 

actual flow information by some intrastate pipelines, with some changes relative to the 

Initial NOPR. Under the proposal contained in the Posting NOPR, interstate pipelines 

would be required to post daily actual flow information in addition to the currently 

required posting of capacity and daily scheduling information. Major non-interstate 

pipelines would be required to post daily scheduled flow information in addition to 

capacity and daily actual flow information. As explained in the Posting NOPR, the 

Commission believed that the proposal would facilitate price transparency in markets for 

the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce. 

6. The Commission issued the Posting NOPR to develop the record more fully, 

particularly as to the proposals regarding interstate natural gas pipelines. The Posting 

NOPR was intended to give interstate natural gas pipelines sufficient notice of the 

changes that seemed necessary to implement adequately section 23 of the NGA.7

 Also, 

in the Posting NOPR, we directed staff to hold a technical conference to address 

7

 Posting NOPR at P 2. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 5 - 

implementation issues associated with the proposal, such as obtaining and posting actual 

flow information and obtaining and posting information from storage facilities.8

7. As directed by the Commission, staff held a technical conference on April 3, 2008. 

Comments on the Posting NOPR were due on March 13, 2008; reply comments on April 

14, 2008. The Commission received fifty-five comments and nineteen reply comments.9

III. Authority for the Rule

A. Posting NOPR

8. In the Posting NOPR, we provided our interpretation of section 23 of the NGA 

and the Commission’s authority to enhance transparency in the interstate natural gas 

markets. We concluded that Congress granted us broad authority in EPAct 2005, placing 

non-interstate pipelines within the Commission’s transparency authority under section 23 

of the GA in order to ensure – for the entirety of the wholesale, physical natural gas 

market – transparency of price and availability, including transparency of market price 

formation. As we stated in both the Initial NOPR and Posting NOPR, “[w]hile 

distinctions between intrastate and interstate natural gas markets may be meaningful from 

 8 Id. at P 8. 

9

 A list of commenters and abbreviations for the commenters is contained in 

Appendix A. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 6 - 

a legal perspective, they are not meaningful from the perspective of market price 

formation.”10

B. Comments

9. Several commenters agree that the Commission has broad transparency authority 

under section 23 of the NGA, including authority over non-interstate pipelines.11 APGA 

supports the Commission’s contention that the statute authorizes obtaining information 

from “any market participant” and not just “natural gas companies” as “tacit recognition 

that in order to collect the necessary information about the wholesale and interstate 

market, the Commission might well need to collect information from entities not 

historically subject to FERC jurisdiction.”12

10. A significant number of commenters hold a different view, and contend that the 

term “any market participant,” contained in section 23(a)(3)(A) of the NGA, does not 

include non-interstate pipelines. TPA asserts that the term “any market participant” is 

limited to the participants in wholesale interstate natural gas markets.13 Thus, according 

to TPA, the Commission exceeds its authority under the transparency provisions by 

 10 Initial NOPR at P 20; Posting NOPR at P 25. 

11 APGA Comments at 3-4; TIPRO Comments at 1-2; Yates Comments at 4. 

12 APGA Comments at 4. 

13 TPA Comments at 35. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 7 - 

subjecting “‘non-interstate’ entities that do not participate in interstate sales markets” to 

its transparency authority.14 Further, TPA contends that had “Congress sought to expand 

the Commission’s jurisdiction to entities that do not participate in the interstate 

commerce market, it could have used the language ‘affecting interstate commerce,’ 

which has historically been read as a more expansive grant of authority.”15 Similarly, 

Chevron Pipelines contends that because Congress did not expressly include intrastate 

pipelines in section 23, “one must conclude that the Commission’s jurisdiction was 

intended by Congress to be no greater following the enactment of section 23 than that 

which existed prior to the passage of that section.”16

11. Certain commenters assert that, contrary to the Commission’s conclusions, the de

minimis exemption does not aid in the interpretation of the term “any market participant.” 

TPA interprets the de minimis exemption to mean that “the Commission should not 

require those with a de minimis presence in the interstate market to be subject to an added 

reported burden.”17

 14 Id. at 36. 

15 Id. at 39 (citing City of Centralia v. FERC, 661 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1981) and 

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 3 FERC ¶ 61,115, at 61,239 n.1 (1978)). 

16 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 9-10. 

17 TPA Comments at 44. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 8 - 

12. Several commenters argue that section 1 of the NGA bars the Commission from 

obtaining and disseminating information from a non-interstate pipeline. TPA claims that 

sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the NGA limit the Commission’s transparency authority under 

section 23 of the NGA.18 TPA also contends that “extensive case law show[s] that 

Congress has consistently respected the distinction between interstate and intrastate sale 

and transportation of natural gas.”19 Similarly, Copano Energy believes that section 1(b) 

of the NGA precludes the Commission from exercising its transparency authority over 

transportation of natural gas wholly in intrastate commerce.20 In support, Copano Energy 

points to Union Oil Company of America v. FPC,

21 in which the court stated that the 

“Natural Gas Act limits the gathering of intrastate data to gathering it from companies 

falling under the Commission’s jurisdiction.”22 Commenters argue that because 

Congress did not revise section 1 of the NGA, that section precludes the Commission 

from exercising transparency authority over non-interstate pipelines.23 

 18 Id. at 42. 

19 Id. at 43. 

20 Copano Energy Comments at 6. 

21 542 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1976). 

22 Id. at 1039. 

23 See, e.g., Copano Energy Comments at 6. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 9 - 

 

13. Several commenters state that a posting rule on non-interstate pipelines would 

constitute improper regulation of a non-interstate pipeline’s operations and rates. TPA 

contends that the pipeline posting requirement would “directly regulate the operations of 

non-interstate pipelines” because the posting of data regarding mainline segments would 

require many non-interstate pipelines “to define segments on their systems and to install 

metering equipment to measure gas at those segments.”24 Such meters, in turn, would 

affect the operations of pipelines, hinder efficiency and raise prices.25 Similarly, DCP 

Midstream holds that a pipeline posting requirement would impermissibly interfere with 

states’ regulation of intrastate gas pipelines. DCP Midstream reasons that the costs to 

meet the requirement would be borne by intrastate customers and rate payers which 

would encroach upon state ratemaking authority.26

14. Other commenters assert that two clauses in section 23 preclude the Commission’s 

authority to obtain information about gas that flows on a non-interstate pipeline because 

such gas is sold only in intrastate commerce, not in interstate commerce. First, 

commenters contend that the statutory language in subsection (a)(1) “for the sale or 

transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce” limits the type of price 

24 TPA Comments at 40. 

25 Id.

26 DCP Midstream Comments at 7-8; see also Railroad Commission of Texas 

Comments at 7. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 10 - 

transparency that the Commission may facilitate.27 Second, commenters contend that the 

statutory language in subsection (a)(2), which permits the Commission to issue rules that 

provide for the “disseminat[ion]... [of] information about the availability and prices of 

natural gas sold at wholesale and in interstate commerce,” does not include information 

about gas that flows on a non-interstate pipeline, because it is not “sold at wholesale and 

in interstate commerce.” 28 For instance, TPA argues that this language does not 

authorize the Commission to mandate the posting of “data about transportation of gas that 

may never be ‘sold at wholesale and in interstate commerce,’” as it is “directed at 

increased transparency in sales and transportation in interstate commerce.”29

C. Commission Determination

15. Section 23 of the NGA gives the Commission broad authority to facilitate price 

transparency in the interstate natural gas market. For that purpose, section 23 further 

authorizes the Commission to obtain and disseminate information. As now explained, the 

regulations promulgated in this Final Rule do not exceed that broad authority. 

16. Section 23(a)(1) of the NGA directs the Commission to: “facilitate price 

transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate 

 27 See, e.g., Atmos Comments at 11-12. 

28 See, e.g., DCP Midstream Comments at 8-9. See also Atmos Comments at 11-

12. 

29 TPA Comments at 35 (emphasis original). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 11 - 

 

commerce, having due regard for the public interest, the integrity of those markets, fair 

competition, and the protection of consumers.”30 Congress left to the Commission’s 

discretion whether to enact rules to carry out this direction and provided that any rules 

implementing this section provide for public dissemination of the information gathered: 

The Commission may prescribe such rules as the Commission 

determines necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of 

this section. The rules shall provide for the dissemination, on a 

timely basis, of information about the availability and prices of 

natural gas sold at wholesale and in interstate commerce to the 

Commission, State commissions, buyers and sellers of wholesale 

natural gas, and the public. [31] 

17. Further, section 23(a)(3)(A) of the NGA allows the Commission “to obtain the 

information... from any market participant.”32 By using the term “market participant,” 

Congress deliberately expanded the universe of entities subject to the Commission’s 

transparency authority beyond the entities subject to the Commission’s traditional rates, 

terms, and conditions jurisdiction under other sections of the NGA. The term “market 

participant” is not defined in the NGA and is not on its face limited to otherwise 

jurisdictional entities. As we explained in the Posting NOPR, this authorization is 

30 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

31 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

32 Section 23(a)(3)(A) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(3)(A) (2000 & Supp. V 

2005). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 12 - 

expansive. Congress was aware that other sections of the NGA limited the scope of 

entities subject to the Commission’s traditional regulatory authority to natural gas 

companies as that term is defined in the statute, but chose not to apply this same 

limitation in section 23. Congress clearly recognized that the Commission might not 

obtain sufficient price transparency from those “natural gas companies” subject to our 

traditional regulatory authority. This is consistent with the Commission’s findings here 

that a complete picture of the interstate natural gas market and the supply and demand 

fundamentals underlying that market require information from non-interstate natural gas 

pipelines.33

18. Moreover, the statutory language emphasizes the broad meaning of the phrase 

“market participant” by adding “any” as a descriptor. Our authority attaches not to a 

subset of market participants (for example, only those market participants traditionally 

subject to our regulation), but to any such participant.34 Court precedent confirms that 

the word “any” gives the term it modifies (in this case, “market participant”) an 

 33 We have recently stated in Order No. 704-A that the term “market participant” 

in section 23 of the NGA is not limited only to natural gas pipelines, but to all relevant 

segments of the natural gas supply and distribution chain. Order No. 704-A at P 37. As 

we discussed in this previous exercise of our authority under section 23 of the NGA, the 

statute grants broad latitude to the Commission to effectuate Congressional transparency 

goals. 

34 See Posting NOPR at P 28. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 13 - 

 

expansive meaning.35 We believe that Congress used the expansive term “any market 

participant” because it intended to provide broad transparency authority to the 

Commission. By this choice, Congress recognized that the Commission may need to 

obtain information from a wide variety of entities in order to facilitate transparency. 

19. The Commission disagrees with commenters who argue that section 1(b) of the 

NGA precludes the Commission from imposing the daily posting requirement on noninterstate pipelines. Section 1(b) of the NGA provides that the “provisions of this chapter 

. . . shall apply to the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, to the sale in 

interstate commerce of natural gas for resale . . .” and that such provisions “shall not 

apply to any other transportation or sale of natural gas.”36 Likewise, we disagree that 

section 23 has limited application only to “natural gas companies.” Section 1 is not 

referenced in section 23 and the term “natural gas company” is nowhere found in the 

section. Including such a reference would have been the simplest way for Congress to 

35 Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 31-32 (2004) (the word “any” gives 

the word it modifies an expansive reading); Dep’t. of Housing and Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 

535 U.S. 125, 130-31 (2002); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (one must 

give effect to each word in a statute so that none is rendered superfluous); United States 

v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) (“any” is an expansive term, meaning “one or some 

indiscriminately of whatever kind,”); New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 885-87 (D.C. Cir. 

2006) (the word “any” is broadly construed to reflect Congress’ intent that all types of 

physical changes are subject to the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program). 

36 Section 1(b) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717(b). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 14 - 

 

demonstrate an intent to limit the Commission’s transparency authority only to entities 

which we already regulate. 

20. We likewise disagree with certain commenters’ arguments regarding application 

of pre-EPAct 2005 caselaw in this circumstance. The cases cited by commenters apply 

the jurisdictional limits set forth in section 1 of the NGA prior to the enactment of EPAct 

2005.37 These arguments run afoul of the principle of statutory construction that 

“Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a 

statute.”38 Thus, Congress was presumably aware that prior to the enactment of 

section 23, the NGA could be construed as limiting the Commission’s authority to obtain 

data on intrastate natural gas flows to obtaining it from companies falling under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction.39 In using the term “any market participant” instead of 

“natural gas company,” Congress signaled its intent to expand the Commission’s 

37 See, e.g., Union Oil Co., 542 F.2d at 1039. In a post-EPAct 2005 case as noted 

by commenters, Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. FERC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit discussed the limits of the Commission’s jurisdiction, but that court was 

not reviewing the NGA, let alone section 23. 495 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 

38 Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978) (internal citations omitted); accord

2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction sec. 45.12 (5th ed. 1992) 

(“legislative language will be interpreted on the assumption that the legislature was aware 

of . . . judicial decisions”). 

39 Union Oil Co., 542 F.2d at 1039 (Observing that the NGA limits the 

Commission’s “gathering of intrastate data to gathering it from companies falling under 

the Commission’s jurisdiction”). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 15 - 

 

transparency authority beyond the universe of natural gas companies to which it would 

otherwise be limited. TPA observes that courts have held that the Commission cannot 

exceed its statutory authority.40 This is an unremarkable and unassailable conclusion, but 

one that provides no guidance where the issue is not whether the Commission may 

exceed its statutory authority but what is the extent of the Commission’s transparency 

authority. 

21. For similar reasons, we do not find persuasive the argument that Congress could 

have expressed its intent to subject non-interstate pipelines to the Commission’s 

transparency authority only by revising or amending section 1 of the NGA. First, 

section 1 of the NGA delineates the set of entities subject to the Commission’s traditional 

ratemaking and certificate authority. If Congress amended section 1 of the NGA to apply 

to a new set of entities, it would have been providing the Commission not only a limited 

grant of transparency authority, but the broader grant of authority that section 1 entails. 

Second, altering the exceptions in section 1, as commenters suggested, is not the only 

way to alter the statute to give the Commission transparency authority. Section 23 could, 

and in fact did, confer such authority separately from our authority under section 1. 

Third, if Congress intended to exclude non-interstate pipelines from the Commission’s 

40 Reply Comments of TPA at 16-17 (citing Transmission Agency of N. Cal., 495 

F.3d 663 and United Distrib. Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 16 - 

authority under section 23 of the NGA, it would have used the term “natural gas 

company” in section 23, instead of the term “any market participant.” 

22. Nevertheless, while the authority granted to us in section 23 is broad, we do not 

mean to imply that the Commission’s authority to obtain information from “any market 

participant” is plenary. In section 23, Congress limited our transparency authority in 

three respects. First, Congress directed the Commission to “facilitate price transparency 

in markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate 

commerce....”41 Thus, any information collected and disseminated must be for the 

purpose of price transparency in those markets. We do not interpret this language to limit 

the Commission to obtaining information only about physical natural gas sales or 

transportation in those markets, however, provided that the information obtained and 

disseminated pertains to price transparency in those markets. Second, Congress required 

that the Commission’s rules “provide for the dissemination, on a timely basis, of 

information about the availability and prices of natural gas sold at wholesale and in 

interstate commerce....”42 Again, this language does not limit the type of information the 

Commission could collect to implement its mandate, provided that such information is 

“about” (i.e., pertains to) the “availability and prices of natural gas sold at wholesale and 

 41 Section 23(a)(1) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

42 Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 17 - 

in interstate commerce.” Where transportation or sales of natural gas are not in interstate 

commerce, they nonetheless fall under the Commission’s transparency mandate if they 

affect the availability and prices of natural gas at wholesale and in interstate commerce. 

23. Perhaps the most important limitation on our transparency authority is contained 

in section 23(d)(2) which mandates an exemption from any reporting for “natural gas 

producers, processors, or users who have a de minimis market presence....”43 It is 

noteworthy that this limitation does not exempt all producers and all processors from 

reporting, but exempts only producers that have a de minimis market presence and only 

processors that have a de minimis market presence. Section 1(b) of the NGA explicitly 

excludes these entities from the Commission’s traditional regulation. If, as some 

commenters assert, Congress did not intend to give the Commission authority over any 

entity excluded by section 1(b) of the NGA, a de minimis exemption would have been 

unnecessary; in other words, section 23(d)(2) would have been surplusage. Congress is 

not presumed to enact surplus language.44 To avoid this improper result, we interpret 

section 23 of the NGA to give effect to the de minimis language by interpreting the term 

 43 Section 23(d)(2) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(d)(2) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

44 City of Roseville v. Norton, 348 F.3d 1020, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing 

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmty. for a Greater Oregon, 515 U.S. 687, 698 

(1995)). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 18 - 

“any market participant” to include those entities otherwise excluded from the 

Commission’s NGA jurisdiction by section 1(b) of the act. 

24. The regulations promulgated by this Final Rule reflect Congress’ limitations on 

the Commission’s authority. The Commission’s traditional regulatory authority remains 

limited to “natural gas companies” under section 1 of the act. Section 23 of the NGA 

authorizes the Commission only to obtain and disseminate information. The Commission 

is not regulating the intrastate operations of non-interstate pipelines; nor is the 

Commission regulating the rates or terms and conditions of service for non-interstate 

pipelines. Consistent with its limited transparency authority set forth in section 23 of the 

NGA, the Commission will require major non-interstate pipelines only to post 

information. 

25. Based upon the text of section 23 of the NGA and the clear intent of Congress, we 

determine that we have ample authority to issue this Final Rule, including the 

promulgation of regulations requiring additional posting obligations on both interstate 

and major non-interstate pipelines. 

IV. Need for the Rule

A. Posting NOPR

26. As discussed in the Posting NOPR, section 23 of the NGA is a clear expression of 

Congress’ belief that the Commission may rightly perceive a need “to facilitate price 

transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 19 - 

 

commerce, having due regard for the public interest, the integrity of those markets, and 

the protection of consumers.” Section 23 further provides that the Commission may issue 

such rules as it deems necessary and appropriate to “provide for the dissemination, on a 

timely basis, of information about the availability and prices of natural gas sold at 

wholesale and interstate commerce to the Commission, State commissions, buyers and 

sellers of wholesale natural gas, and the public.” The Posting NOPR stated that natural 

gas markets function more efficiently, and market problems are more readily identifiable, 

if participants and observers have timely access to natural gas transportation data. As we 

stated in Order No. 636: 

The Commission believes that . . . it is vital to give all gas 

purchasers ([local distribution companies (LDCs)] and end 

users, such as industrials and gas-fired electric generators) the 

ability to make market-driven choices about the price of gas 

as a commodity and about the cost of delivering the gas. 

Simply put, efficiency in the national gas market can be 

realized only when the purchasers of a commodity know, in a 

timely manner, the prices of the distinct elements associated 

with the full range of services needed to purchase and then 

deliver gas from the wellhead to the burnertip. Only then will 

gas purchasers be able to purchase, based upon their needs, 

the exact services they want with full recognition of the prices 

that they would have to pay. And only then will the 

Commission be assured that all gas is transported to the 

market place on fair terms. What best serves the interests of 

gas purchasers -- the ability to make informed choices -- is 

also important for gas sellers.45

45 Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations Governing SelfImplementing Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial 

 

(continued...) 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 20 - 

 major 

 

27. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission proposed that major non-interstate46

natural gas pipelines post information on actual flows and scheduled volumes. The 

Commission defined a “major non-interstate pipeline” as one that is not a “natural gas 

company” under section 1 of the NGA47 and that flows greater than 10 million 

(10,000,000) MMBtus of natural gas per year. Such a major non-interstate pipeline 

would post daily “capacity, scheduled flow volumes, and actual flow volumes at

points and mainline segments.”48 The Commission did not define “major points and 

mainline segments.” The Commission proposed two exemptions to the definition of 

“major non-interstate pipeline.” First, the Commission proposed to exempt non-interstate 

natural gas pipelines that “fall entirely upstream of a processing plant.”49 Second, the 

Wellhead Decontrol, Order No. 636, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,939, at p. 30,393, order 

on reh’g, Order No. 636-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,950, order on reh’g, Order No. 

636-B, 61 FERC ¶ 61,272 (1992), order on reh’g, 62 FERC ¶ 61,007 (1993), aff’d in part 

and remanded in part sub nom. United Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. 

Cir. 1996), order on remand, Order No. 636-C, 78 FERC ¶ 61,186 (1997). 

46 In the Initial NOPR, the Commission used the term “intrastate pipeline.” In the 

Posting NOPR, the Commission used the term “non-interstate pipeline.” The latter term 

more accurately describes the scope of the rule, which is issued pursuant to section 23 of 

the NGA. This section applies to both interstate and non-interstate pipelines and does not 

use the term “intrastate pipeline.” 

47 15 U.S.C. 717 (2007). 

48 Posting NOPR at P 3. 

49 Id. at P 4. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 21 - 

l 

ty and scheduled flows.52

 

Commission proposed to exempt non-interstate natural gas pipelines “that deliver more 

than 95 percent of the natural gas volumes they flow directly to end-users.”50 The 

Commission also proposed that interstate natural gas pipelines post information on actua

flows,51 in addition to the existing requirement to post capaci

28. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission articulated three goals to be served by 

posting of flow information by non-interstate pipelines. First, by providing a more 

complete picture of supply and demand fundamentals, these postings would improve 

market participants’ ability to assess supply and demand and to price physical natural gas 

transactions. Second, during periods when the United States natural gas delivery system 

is disturbed, for instance due to hurricane damage to facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

these postings would provide market participants a clearer view of the effects on 

infrastructure, the industry, and the economy as a whole. Finally, these postings would 

allow the Commission and other market observers to identify and remedy potentially 

manipulative activity.53

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 Id.

53 Id. at P 60. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 22 - 

B. Comments

29. A broad cross-section of the industry, representing producers, end-users, LDCs, 

and information providers, supports the goals of the pipeline posting requirement.54 In 

the Posting NOPR, the Commission asked for comment on whether the pipeline posting 

proposal would “provide a more complete picture of supply and demand fundamentals 

and improve market participants’ ability to assess supply and demand and to price 

physical natural gas transactions.”55 Several commenters support posting requirements, 

particularly for non-interstate pipelines, as a means to meet this goal. NGSA states that 

“the [] proposed flow data posting requirement has the potential to provide market 

participants and regulators with additional information regarding underlying natural gas 

supply and demand fundamentals.”56 Similarly, APGA supports the Commission’s 

rationale for obtaining daily flow information from major non-interstate pipelines.57 

IPAA also supports the posting of flow data from non-interstate pipelines, “but with a 

 54 See, e.g., NGSA Reply Comments at 5; TIPRO Comments at 3; APGA 

Comments at 4; Calpine Comments at 2-3; Bentek Comments at 3. 

55 Posting NOPR at P 71. 

56 NGSA Comments at 14. 

57 APGA Comments at 4. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 23 - 

 

close watch on the costs of compliance, as the producer is likely to end up bearing much 

of those costs.”58

30. TIPRO contends that the pipeline posting proposal meets the goal of increasing 

transparency of supplies that affect prices.59 Bentek, which collects and publishes 

information based on interstate flows, contends that requiring non-interstate pipelines to 

report daily flows and capacity “will significantly improve industry’s ability to 

understand natural gas supply and demand issues throughout the country” making “the 

market more transparent, less volatile, more reliable, and more efficient.”60

31. Some commenters argue that the posting proposal, particularly regarding noninterstate pipelines, is not justified. Atmos believes that the need for the information has 

not been demonstrated and that there is already sufficient price transparency in interstate 

markets.61 Chevron Pipelines acknowledge that flow information from non-interstate 

pipelines may provide a more complete picture of supply and demand fundamentals, but 

58 IPAA Comments at 1. 

59 TIPRO Comments at 3. 

60 Bentek Comments at 12. 

61 Atmos Comments at 10-11. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 24 - 

state that such flow information would have a de minimis effect on market participants’ 

assessments of supply and demand and pricing of physical natural gas transactions.62

32. Kinder Morgan Intrastate maintains that due to the bundled sales function and the 

highly variable types of services provided by intrastate pipelines, a snapshot of available 

capacity on a given pipeline at a given time would not necessarily reflect pricing 

fundamentals. Because Kinder Morgan Intrastate provides no-notice service to many 

industrial users and must reserve physical capacity to serve this no-notice service, it 

asserts that capacity is not available for other customers. Thus, it alleges, posted capacity 

information would send the wrong signals to the market because it would reflect the 

complexity of pipeline operations rather than the overall supply situation in the market.63

33. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission also asked for comment on whether the 

proposal would provide a clearer view of the effects on infrastructure, the industry, and 

the economy during periods when the United States natural gas delivery system is 

disturbed, for instance, due to hurricane damage to facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Several commenters contend that the posting of flow information by non-interstate 

 62 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 25. 

63 Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 16-17. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 25 - 

 

pipelines would support this goal.64 Chevron Pipelines assert that the requirements on 

non-interstate natural gas pipelines already are sufficient to gain a sense of how a 

significant disruption may affect natural gas pipeline facilities.65 TPA believes that 

significant disruptions such as hurricanes would preclude postings by non-interstate 

pipelines and evaluation of the impact of such disruptions on pipeline facilities could be 

obtained through less obtrusive means, such as contacting the pipeline.66 

34. Finally, in the Posting NOPR, the Commission asked for comment on another goal 

of the pipeline posting proposal – whether the proposal would allow market observers to 

identify potentially manipulative activity. In response, several commenters assert that the 

posting of flow information by non-interstate pipelines would support this goal.67

35. By contrast, Chevron Pipelines declare that the information to be posted has no 

relation to pricing decisions, and therefore, the potential for misconduct by not making 

public such information is unfounded.68 Kinder Morgan Intrastate expresses concern that 

64 Yates Comments at 7; TIPRO Comments at 2; APGA Comments at 4; Royalty 

Owners Comments at 2-3. 

65 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 25. 

66 TPA Comments at 20. 

67 See, e.g., TIPRO Comments at 2; APGA Comments at 4; Royalty Owners 

Comments at 2-3; Yates Comments at 8. 

68 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 25. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 26 - 

 

postings by non-interstates pipelines would lead market participants to suspect price 

manipulation where none was occurring. In support, Kinder Morgan Intrastate provides 

the example of a net segment flow of zero due to forward-hauls and backhauls canceling 

each other out.69 TPA adds that the Commission has not demonstrated how the proposed 

pipeline posting rule could be used to track manipulative behavior.70 

36. Several commenters contend that there are alternatives available to daily posting 

of flow information by non-interstate pipelines. Commenters point to the following 

information as alternatives: postings of capacity and scheduling data for “points at which 

intrastate pipelines connect to the interstate grid;”71 postings by interstate natural gas 

pipelines;72 Bentek’s “Texas Intrastate Report;”73 data “filed annually by intrastate 

pipelines pursuant to section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act;”74 price information 

provided by “NYMEX, CME, Globex, ICE and voice brokers, as well as price index 

69 Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 17. 

70 TPA Comments at 48. 

71 Id. at 21-22. 

72 Id. at 21. 

73 Id. at 23. 

74 Id. at 22. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 27 - 

 

publishers;”75 state commission production data;76 and information available from the 

United States Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).77 

Genscape describes its natural gas pipeline flow monitoring product, which can measure 

flows on pipelines, and which Genscape uses presently to “monitor[ ] injections and 

withdrawals of gas at multiple storage facilities in Texas and Louisiana that are 

connected in whole or in part to intrastate pipeline systems.”78

37. Commenters argue that a posting requirement on non-interstate pipelines would 

pose a competitive risk for non-interstate pipelines and for their customers. Atmos states: 

“the public dissemination of capacity information could provide competitors with insight 

into the pipeline’s ability to continue to provide services to existing and prospective 

customers, which could influence the location of new facility construction or how offers 

are made to prospective customers.”79 Atmos describes a possible scenario in which two 

competing pipelines could serve one customer. When publicly disseminated information 

75 Id.

76 Id. at 22 n 59. 

77 Id. at 22. 

78 Reply Comments of Genscape, Inc., at 3, Docket No. AD06-11-000 (filed Aug. 

23, 2007). 

79 Atmos Comments at 9. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 28 - 

shows that one of those pipelines is at capacity, the other would have the opportunity to 

raise its price.80

38. Calpine, however, supports a posting obligation for non-interstate pipelines, 

stating that requiring the same posting requirements on both non-interstate and interstate 

pipelines would eliminate an existing competitive advantage for non-interstate 

pipelines.81

C. Commission Determination

39. Based upon the comments received and the input from stakeholders at the 

technical conference, we continue to believe that this Final Rule is needed because the 

information currently provided by interstate pipelines presents an incomplete picture of 

the supply and demand fundamentals that underlie the interstate natural gas market. 

While, as discussed above, Congress has given authority to the Commission to obtain 

additional information from market participants to increase transparency, we 

acknowledge that section 23 of the NGA grants us discretion as to whether and how to 

utilize this authority. The current picture of the interstate natural gas market derives from 

information on scheduled natural gas volumes and available capacity posted by interstate 

 80 Id.

81 Calpine Comments at 5. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 29 - 

 

pipelines. In compliance with the regulations adopted in Order No. 637,82 interstate 

pipelines currently post daily information on the Internet about scheduled natural gas 

volumes for most of the continental United States. Shippers and other market 

participants rely on information posted by interstate pipelines to price both transportation 

and commodity transactions.83 As we described in the Posting NOPR, market 

participants retrieve the posted information on scheduled volumes from the websites of 

interstate natural gas pipelines, which they use to estimate in near real-time a variety of 

supply and demand conditions including geographic and industrial sector consumption, 

82 Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas Transportation Services and Regulation 

of Interstate Natural Gas Transportation Services, Order No. 637, 65 FR 10,156 (Feb. 25, 

2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,091, at 31,332, clarified, Order No. 637-A, FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,099, reh’g denied, Order No. 637-B, 92 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2000), aff’d in part 

and remanded in part sub nom. Interstate Natural Gas Ass’n of America v. FERC, 285 

F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2002), order on remand, 101 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2002), order on reh’g, 

106 FERC ¶ 61,088 (2004), aff’d sub nom. American Gas Ass’n v. FERC, 428 F.3d 255 

(D.C. Cir. 2005). 

83 In this regard, we disagree with commenters, such as Atmos, that increased 

transparency would harm competition. Such has not been our experience with interstate 

natural gas pipeline posting requirements. To the contrary, increased transparency has 

allowed for more informed decision making by market participants. In the scenario 

posited by Atmos (i.e., two pipelines, one of which is at capacity, that could serve a 

single customer), the posting of scheduled flow information at a particular point would 

typically not be sufficient to affect competition. Even if disclosure did have an effect, the 

effect would be to allow all market participants to make efficient determinations based 

upon equal access to relevant information. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 30 - 

 

storage injections and withdrawals and regional production.84 This posted scheduled 

flow information contributes to market transparency by providing information about the 

supply and demand fundamentals that drive price movements.85 Further, our staff relies 

on this posted information to perform oversight and enforcement functions. In sum, the 

existing posting requirements for interstate pipelines provide the Commission, market 

participants, and other market observers with a picture of the availability of natural gas 

(both the commodity and transportation needed to move the commodity to market 

centers).86

40. Nevertheless, this picture is incomplete. Because the Commission’s existing 

pipeline posting regulations do not apply to non-interstate pipelines, market observers 

cannot determine the availability of natural gas and transportation on a non-interstate 

pipeline to the same extent as they could for an interstate pipeline. These gaps in 

information are significant because, as detailed further below, major gas flows between 

producing basins and interstate markets occur on non-interstate pipelines and are thus 

84 Posting NOPR at P 55. See also Comments of Bentek, Docket No. AD06-11-

000 (filed Oct. 11, 2006). 

85 See, e.g., Comments of Platt’s at 11-13, Docket No. AD06-11-000 (filed Nov. 1, 

2006) (information regarding the supply and demand of natural gas explains prices and 

such information is available from interstate pipelines, but not intrastate pipelines). 

86 See, e.g., id. at 11 (explaining that, to understand prices, “the marketplace must 

look to... information on [the] availability of and demand for natural gas....”). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 31 - 

 

invisible to the market. Often, the availability and price of natural gas on large noninterstate pipelines affects the availability and price of natural gas nation-wide because 

these pipelines serve as important pricing points and gateways for flows to much of the 

United States. Interstate and non-interstate pipeline infrastructure is functionally interconnected in the United States. The gaps in information about non-interstate flows result 

from the limitations on the Commission’s authority over non-interstate pipelines prior to 

the enactment of EPAct 2005. 

41. For instance, there is a significant lack of information about supply and demand 

fundamentals in the south-central region of the country: Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, 

and in southern California. As we discussed in the Initial and Posting NOPRs, several 

major United States natural gas pricing points sit at the confluence of multiple interstate 

and non-interstate pipelines. A study by EIA identified twenty-eight national market 

centers, of which thirteen are served by a combination of interstate and non-interstate 

pipelines.87 The table below shows the capacity of interstate and non-interstate pipelines 

connected to each of these thirteen locations. Significantly, as relevant here, at nine of 

these thirteen locations, non-interstate capacity is greater than interstate capacity. 

87 Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Market 

Centers and Hubs: A 2003 Update, (Oct. 2003), http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/ 

oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2003/market_hubs/mkthubs03.pdf. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 32 - 

Table 1: Inter- and Intrastate Pipeline Delivery Capacity at 

Selected United States Natural Gas Pricing Points88

Receipt and Delivery Capacity

Hub Name State

Interstate Pipelines 

(MMcf/d)

Non-interstate 

Pipelines (MMcf/d)

Carthage TX 1,120 1,355

Henry Hub LA 2,770 1,215

Katy – Enstor TX 1,370 3,815

Katy – DEFS TX 260 2,360

Mid Continent KS 1,112 627

Moss Bluff TX 1,050 1,800

Nautilus LA 1,200 1,350

Perryville LA 3,652 350

Aqua Dulce TX 855 835

Waha - Lone Star TX 810 1,140

Waha – Encina TX 525 800

Waha - El Paso TX 1,165 1,660

Waha – DEFS TX 300 1,850

 

42. No place is more indicative of the integration of interstate and non-interstate 

pipelines than Henry Hub in Louisiana. Henry Hub acts as an interchange for natural 

gas, where numerous interstate and non-interstate pipelines meet. It serves as the 

location for delivery of natural gas under the New York Mercantile Exchange’s 

(NYMEX) futures contract. Monthly settlement of NYMEX’s Henry Hub natural gas 

 88 The information on this chart is derived from Table 2 of Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Market Centers and Hubs: A 2003 

Update, (Oct. 2003), http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/ 

oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2003/market_hubs/mkthubs03.pdf) updated utilizing 

data available from EIA for 2005. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 33 - 

 

futures contract has become important in determining a variety of monthly index prices 

used to set natural gas prices in a large number of transactions in interstate commerce, 

particularly along the East Coast and Gulf Coast of the United States. The nature of this 

influence is detailed in Commission staff’s 2006 State of the Markets Report.89 Because 

Henry Hub is connected to both interstate and non-interstate pipelines, the picture of 

flows and availability on the pipelines that feed into the Henry Hub is incomplete. 

43. Figure 1 below demonstrates the integration of interstate and non-interstate flows 

in many of these markets. One cannot understand flow patterns on interstate natural gas 

pipelines nationwide without understanding flows on non-interstate pipelines in those 

areas. Non-interstate pipelines provide crucial physical links between interstate natural 

gas pipelines (particularly in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and California) as well as 

links between market hubs. Figure 1 shows major East-West flows of natural gas 

between the major production basins, such as Waha production area and major market 

locations, such as the Carthage Hub, but because such flows generally take place on noninterstate natural gas pipelines, they are invisible to market participants and other market 

observers. 

89 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2006 State of the Markets Report at 

48-50 (Jan. 2007), www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/market-oversight.asp (follow link to 

the State of the Markets Full Report). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 34 - 

Figure 1 

Texas and Louisiana Market Hubs and Their Connection to Other Regions in the 

United States 

44. The magnitude of missing market information is indicated in a comparison of the 

types of information available for interstate and non-interstate pipelines. Gas delivery 

data in Texas from interstate natural gas pipeline postings show approximately 1 bcf of 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 35 - 

 

deliveries to Texas end users on any given day in 2006.90 EIA shows that total average 

daily consumption of gas in Texas was approximately 9.4 Bcf/day in 2006.91 This means 

that delivery information for 90 percent of the gas consumed in the state is only provided 

in the aggregate for all of Texas and published monthly with a lag of several months 

while 10 percent of the gas delivered is reported daily by receipt and delivery point. 

Therefore, nearly 90 percent of consumption was invisible to market participants and 

other market observers on a daily basis. 

45. Purchasers of natural gas in interstate commerce draw on the same sources of 

supply as users and purchasers of intrastate natural gas. Intrastate markets often compete 

from basin to basin with interstate markets. Southern California, for example, competes 

with several large Texas markets for Waha supplies. Interstate/intrastate competition is 

expected to increase. Much of the recent Barnett Shale development in the Fort Worth 

basin in west Texas flows into intrastate systems before moving into interstate markets 

and, recently, two pipeline companies announced a major intrastate pipeline project that 

90 While this EIA data is two years old, based upon our experience, we believe that 

similar circumstances exist in the market today. 

91 “EIA Natural Gas Consumption by End Use,” 

http://www.tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_a_EPG0_VC0_mmcf_a.htm. 

(providing consumption figures by state). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 36 - 

 

would transport 1 Bcf/day from the Barnett Shale development.92 In total, slightly more 

than 40 percent of total on-shore production in Texas is connected to interstate natural 

gas pipelines, close to 60 percent in Louisiana and almost 80 percent in Oklahoma.93 

Although daily volume scheduled to flow from non-interstate into those interstate natural 

gas pipelines can be observed, the supply dynamics that determine the availability of such 

volumes cannot be observed because they occur on non-interstate pipelines. A market 

participant that understands the flows on non-interstate pipelines will better understand 

the availability of supply for the interstate natural gas market, thereby, enhancing 

transparency. 

46. Taken together, this information shows that market prices of physical natural gas 

in interstate commerce result from the aggregate of interstate and non-interstate pipeline 

flows. Because of this relationship, information about the flows on non-interstate 

pipelines would promote price transparency by providing market participants with highly 

relevant information as they make day-to-day economic choices. 

92 “Enbridge, Atmos Energy propose new line to move 1 Bcf/d of northern Texas 

output,” Inside FERC, Sept. 1, 2008 (“The Barnett Intrastate Gas Pipeline would connect 

Atmos Energy’s Line X in Johnson Country, Texas, to Enbridge’s Double D and Clarity 

Pipelines at Bethel in Anderson County, Texas.”). 

93 To derive these figures, Commission staff compared information from Bentek 

on supply scheduled on interstate pipelines with EIA information on withdrawals and 

production. EIA Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production for Texas and 

Oklahoma, http://www.tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_m.htm.
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 37 - 

 

47. Additionally, the proposed pipeline capacity and volume postings would provide 

market participants – and entities charged with oversight of the markets – a clearer view 

of the effects on infrastructure, the industry, and the economy as a whole during periods 

when the United States natural gas delivery system is disturbed. For example, after the 

landfall of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in late 2005, even the most interested of 

governmental and commercial market observers were not able to obtain complete 

information regarding the output by potentially-damaged production facilities.94 By 

monitoring receipt and delivery points for production facilities on interstate natural gas 

pipelines, market observers were able to obtain only a limited sense of production facility 

output.

95 Similarly, market participants, state commissions and other market observers 

were unable to assess effects on natural gas availability in the Gulf Coast, including, for 

instance, availability to the petrochemical industry. The significance and duration of 

these effects on this industry – vulnerable to energy price and availability disruptions – 

remain unclear. Regulations promulgated by this Final Rule will allow market 

94 See, e.g., Comments on Initial NOPR of New York PSC at 2; Comments on 

Initial NOPR of Bentek at 15-16 & 21-22; Comments on Initial NOPR of APGA at 3-4; 

Transcript of the Oct. 13, 2006 Technical Conference (Tech. Conference Tr.), at 25, 

Transparency Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Docket No. AD06-11-000 

(Comments of Sheila Rappazzo, Chief of Policy Section of the Office of Gas and Water 

of the New York PSC). 

95 Tech. Conference Tr. at 25 (Comments of Sheila Rappazzo) (describing how 

after the 2005 hurricanes data availability differed widely). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 38 - 

 

participants and other market observers to gain a much better picture of disruptions in 

natural gas flows in the case of future hurricanes in the Gulf region.96

48. Scheduled volume information would be useful whether a disruption were major 

or minor. TPA asserts that because pipeline facilities would be inaccessible during a 

major disruption, a non-interstate pipeline could not post flow information and, thus, a 

posting requirement would fail to meet this goal. 97 But, during a disruption, the fact that 

scheduled volumes were not posted, itself, would send a signal about the extent and 

duration of a disruption. It would be useful information during and following a 

disruption to know whether some points on a non-interstate were affected but not others. 

For example, following the landfall of hurricanes Gustav and Ike this past hurricane 

96 Along these lines, this Final Rule is consistent with Order No. 682 and with a 

recently developed survey by EIA. In Order No. 682, the Commission revised its 

reporting regulations to require jurisdictional natural gas companies to report damage to 

facilities due to a natural disaster or terrorist activity that results in a reduction in pipeline 

throughput or storage deliverability. Revision of Regulations to Require Reporting of 

Damage to Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Order No. 682, 71 FR 51098 (Aug. 29, 2006), 

FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,227 (2006), Order No. 682-B order denying reh’g, 

118 FERC ¶ 61,188 (2007). Recently, EIA developed Form EIA-757, “Survey of Natural 

Gas Processing Plants” which is used to “collect information on the capacity, status, and 

operations of natural gas processing plants and to monitor constraints of natural gas 

processing plants during periods of supply disruption in areas affected by an emergency, 

such as a hurricane.” Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form 

EIA-757, “Survey of Natural Gas Processing Plants”, 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/survey_forms/drafteia757/ng757_instruction

s.pdf.

97 TPA Comments at 20. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 39 - 

 

season, some pipelines in the affected areas were able to post information about flows 

before actual flows could resume. 

49. We also believe that the regulations promulgated in this Final Rule will more 

readily allow the Commission and other market observers to identify and remedy 

potentially manipulative activity. The goal of identifying and remedying potential market 

manipulation conforms to the transparency directive in section 23 for the Commission to 

“hav[e] due regard for the public interest [and] the integrity of those markets....”98 By 

this language, Congress intended that the improvement of the Commission’s market 

oversight is a legitimate justification for prescribing a transparency rule. Monitoring and 

preventing manipulative or unduly discriminatory activity meets the Commission’s 

responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the physical interstate natural gas markets.99

50. Information regarding availability on non-interstate pipelines could be used to 

discover potentially manipulative or unduly discriminatory behavior in physical natural 

gas sales or transportation. In the Commission’s experience, the fact that a price for 

natural gas is not supported by supply and demand fundamentals may be an indication 

that a market participant has violated the NGA’s prohibitions regarding undue 

98 Section 23(a)(1) of the NGA ; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 

99 See Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation, Order No. 670, FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,202, (2006). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 40 - 

discrimination or market manipulation. On a daily basis, as part of its oversight 

responsibilities, the Commission tracks natural gas prices to determine whether they are 

justified by supply and demand fundamentals. To do this, we rely on, among other 

things, the scheduled volume postings by interstate natural gas pipelines. This 

information also serves as an important tool to analyze natural gas markets. Similar 

postings by non-interstate pipelines would make this analysis more accurate because it 

would provide additional information currently lacking about supply and demand 

fundamentals, a point discussed above. With information from non-interstate pipelines, 

we can better account for how supply and demand fundamentals affect daily changes to 

physical prices for much of the gas transported to key interstate markets. For example, in 

overseeing markets, the Commission routinely checks for unused interstate natural gas 

pipeline capacity between geographically distinct markets with substantially different 

prices as a sign that flows may be managed to manipulate prices. 

51. In summary, the posting of scheduled flow information by major non-interstate 

pipelines will increase transparency by meeting the three goals set forth in the Posting 

NOPR. Such postings will: (1) improve market participants’ ability to assess supply and 

demand and to price physical natural gas transactions and transportation; (2) provide 

market participants a clearer view of the effects on infrastructure, the industry and the 

economy from disruptions to the United States natural gas delivery system, for instance 

due to hurricane damage to facilities in the Gulf of Mexico; and (3) allow the 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 41 - 

 

Commission, market participants and other market observers to identify potentially 

manipulative activity.100 We believe that these are worthy goals. 

52. Further, we do not believe that these transparency goals can be met by less 

intrusive means or through reliance upon existing market data. For example, TPA refers 

to the “data filed annually by intrastate pipelines pursuant to Section 311 of the [Natural 

Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA)]” as a possible substitute for this Final Rule.101 

Section 284.126(b) of the Commission’s regulations requires intrastate pipelines 

providing section 311 transportation to file an annual report of volumes of section 311 

transportation service, to be used to determine the rates applicable to section 311 

service.102 This existing data is inadequate to meet our transparency goals, however, 

because section 311 volumes are only a subset of all volumes transported by intrastate 

pipelines, the information is aggregated and is reported annually and, therefore, delayed 

by at least three months. 

53. TPA also refers to “additional sources of natural gas price information,” including, 

for example, “NYMEX, CME, Globex, ICE and voice brokers, as well as price index 

100 Posting NOPR at 60. 

101 TPA Comments at 22 (citing 15 U.S.C. 717-717z). 

102 18 CFR 284.126(b). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 42 - 

 

publishers.”103 These sources are not a useful substitute for the pipeline posting 

requirements. They do not provide any scheduled flow information and, thus, cannot 

explain the supply and demand fundamentals that underlie the prices in the same way as 

postings by non-interstate pipelines. Additionally, TPA generally refers to state 

commission production data available from Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico.104 

However, this data includes only production data (and not other transportation volumes) 

and is only available on a monthly basis. Similarly, the data from production information 

websites does not include transportation volumes.105

54. TPA references various EIA reports as possible replacement sources for data 

regarding pipeline flows, 106 but none of these reports is an adequate substitute for the 

posting of scheduled volume information by major non-interstate pipelines; none of these 

sources provides scheduled pipeline-by-pipeline flow data on a daily basis. EIA Monthly 

Storage Reports provide only information about aggregated storage flows on a monthly 

or weekly basis. EIA Weekly Storage Reports provide only storage information, are 

issued only once each week, and provide aggregated data for three regions. Form EIA103 TPA Comments at 22. 

104 Id. at 22 n. 59. 

105 Id. at 22. 

106 Id. at 22 n. 59. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 43 - 

 

895 provides only production data aggregated by state. Form EIA-176 does not provide 

daily transportation information, and is significantly lagged and aggregated annually and 

by company. Form EIA-857 provides only “volume and cost data on natural gas 

delivered to residential, commercial, and industrial consumers”107 estimated by reviewing 

a monthly sample of natural gas companies that deliver to consumers in the United 

States. The survey does not report disaggregated daily transactional data at receipt and 

delivery points, but instead only provides partial retail sales. While we appreciate the 

value of EIA’s data collection and publications, we are not persuaded that these activities 

are adequate substitutes for the daily, point-specific postings required by this Final Rule. 

55. As for Genscape’s work monitoring flows on pipelines, its project does not 

provide sufficient coverage of non-interstate pipelines as it appears limited to storage 

facilities in Texas and Louisiana and some major interstate pipelines. Most importantly, 

Genscape’s services are available only for a fee and only to subscribers. The 

Commission’s intent in this Final Rule is to increase transparency for the public’s benefit. 

56. We also believe that the goals of this Final Rule outweigh the burdens to be placed 

upon non-interstate and interstate pipelines. Based upon our experience, as a matter of 

business acumen and good operational practice, most if not all of the gas control 

divisions of the affected companies currently have ready access to the information 

107 http://www.tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/TblDefs/ng_statdetails.html. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 44 - 

captured by this Final Rule. Pipelines already track flows on points with a design 

capacity equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day to ensure the operational integrity of 

their systems; to plan and schedule operations; to monitor and control the pipelines; and 

to respond to and correct abnormal operations. Natural gas pipeline schedulers need this 

information on a daily basis so that they can match supply to nominated demand and 

maintain system balance. Furthermore, some companies that own several major noninterstate pipelines also own interstate natural gas pipelines, which already post 

scheduled volume information. For such companies, the requirement is a familiar one 

and they should have the infrastructure in place, or easily put in place, to meet the 

requirement on their major non-interstate pipelines. 

V. Pipeline Posting Requirements

A. Overview

57. Based on the comments received and the discussion at the technical conference 

held on April 3, 2008, the Commission will modify the proposal in the Posting NOPR in 

a number of significant ways. We have increased the minimum delivery threshold 

defining major non-interstate pipelines from 10 to 50 million MMBtu per year. Also, we 

have determined that neither major non-interstate pipelines nor interstate pipelines will be 

required to post actual flow information at this time. Instead, the regulations 

promulgated in this Final Rule require major non-interstate pipelines to post scheduled

flow information at each receipt and delivery point with a design capacity greater than 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 45 - 

15,000 MMBtu per day, and interstate pipelines to post certain information on no-notice 

service.108 Further, we provide for a number of exemptions and clarifications of the new 

posting requirements that we believe will further limit the burden on entities subject to 

the Final Rule. We address the salient aspects of the regulations in turn, below. 

B. Definition of Major Non-Interstate Pipeline

1. Posting NOPR

58. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission proposed that only major non-interstate 

pipelines would be required to post flow information. The Posting NOPR provisionally 

defined a “major non-interstate pipeline” as “a pipeline that fits the following criteria: 

(1) it is not a ‘natural gas company’ under section 1 of the NGA; and (2) it flows annually 

more than 10 million (10,000,000) MMBtu of natural gas measured in average receipts or 

in deliveries for the past 3 years.”109 The Commission asked for comment on the 

proposed 10 million MMBtu delivery threshold and whether it should be increased or 

decreased.110

 108 Under 18 CFR 284.7(a)(4), an interstate natural gas pipeline must provide nonotice service, which is defined as “a firm transportation service under which firm 

shippers may receive delivery up to their firm entitlements on a daily basis without 

penalty.” 

109 Posting NOPR at P 67. 

110 Id.
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 46 - 

2. Comments

59. Several commenters support both a delivery threshold approach and the 10 million 

MMBtu delivery threshold proposed in the Posting NOPR.111 Copano Energy supports a 

10 million MMBtu threshold but adds that only jurisdictional flows should be counted for 

that delivery threshold.112

60. Several commenters seek an increase in the proposed delivery threshold. 

Contending that a 10 million MMBtu delivery threshold is unnecessarily low, NGSA 

suggests that the delivery threshold should be 50 million MMBtu.113 Relying upon EIA 

data regarding intrastate pipelines, NGSA contends that a 50 million MMBtu delivery 

threshold would capture approximately 90 percent of the intrastate pipeline volumes and 

apply to only 57 intrastate pipelines. By contrast, according to NGSA, a 10 million 

MMBtu threshold would capture 99 percent of such volumes and apply to approximately 

100 intrastate pipelines. NGSA contends that the benefit from this increase in reported 

volumes that would result from establishing a lower threshold is not sufficient to justify 

greater costs related to implementation of a 10 million MMBtu delivery threshold.114 

 111 Bentek Comments at 6; see also TIPRO Comments at 2. 

112 Copano Energy Comments at 10. 

113 NGSA Comments at 5-6. 

114 Id. at 5-6. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 47 - 

Similarly, Chevron Pipelines proposes raising the delivery threshold; it proposes a 

delivery threshold for reporting based on daily flows of 100,000 mcf/day (which equates 

to 36.5 MMBtu/year).115

61. Calpine supports a greater delivery threshold and proposes setting out two 

minimum thresholds based on gross and net throughput levels. It would set a de minimis

daily volume threshold of 100,000 Dth (100,000 MMBtu) of net throughput, net of gas 

consumed by directly connected end-users, or 300,000 Dth (300,000 MMBtu) of gross 

peak day throughput.116

62. TPA suggests that the Commission adopt the delivery threshold used in FERC 

Form No. 2, 50 million Dth (50 million MMBtu), so that only non-interstate pipelines 

that transported over 50 million Dth (50 million MMBtu) in each of the three prior years 

would be required to post.117

63. Shell seeks clarification regarding the calculation of the proposed delivery 

threshold. It contends that the use of thermal units, i.e., MMBtu, is more appropriate than 

volumetric units, i.e., Bcf. Shell suggests that the word “average” should be added in 

front of the word “deliveries” so the calculation would apply both to average receipts 

 115 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 23-24. 

116 Calpine Comments at 6-7. 

117 TPA Comments at 45; see also Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 21; 

NGSA Comments at 5. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 48 - 

and/or deliveries. Shell seeks clarification if the three-year average is a rolling average 

and whether it should be calculated annually. It also seeks clarification on whether the 

delivery threshold should be applied on a facility-by-facility basis or corporate wide.118

3. Commission Determination

64. In consideration of the comments filed in this proceeding, the Commission will 

define a major non-interstate pipeline as a pipeline that “(1) is not a ‘natural gas 

company’ under section 1 of the NGA; and (2) delivers annually more than 50 million 

MMBtu of natural gas measured in average receipts or in average deliveries for the past 

three years.”119 The definition adopted in this Final Rule differs substantially from that 

proposed in the Posting NOPR and adopts a five-fold increase in the delivery threshold. 

Further, the definition bases the threshold on deliveries instead of flows. In addition, the 

definition clarifies that the delivery threshold should be determined on a facility-byfacility basis. 

65. As an initial matter, we believe that a delivery threshold of 50 million MMBtu 

provides sufficient information to meet the Commission’s goal of tracking daily flows of 

natural gas adequately throughout the United States by providing flow information in 

areas for which interstate natural gas pipeline posting is not adequate. EIA Form 176 

 118 Shell Comments at 27-29. 

119 See new section 284.14(a). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 49 - 

 

data demonstrates the reach of the 50 million MMBtu threshold. Excluding deliveries by 

interstate natural gas pipelines, pipelines that deliver greater than 50 million MMBtu 

annually account for 75 percent of total non-interstate volumes delivered in the United 

States.120 While the EIA Form 176 categories are not a precise match to the data required 

to be posted by this Final Rule, the categories are sufficiently similar to show that the 

50 million MMBtu delivery threshold will provide a significant amount of flow 

information to the Commission, market participants, and observers and improve the 

understanding of the supply and demand fundamentals affecting interstate markets. 

Assuming this data is representative, capturing roughly three-fourths of non-interstate 

pipelines would be a significant stride in filling in the gaps regarding flows in the United 

States.121

120 Derived from EIA Form 176 data for 2006 based on the ratio of non-interstate 

pipelines reporting deliveries greater than 50 million MMBtu per year to total deliveries 

on all non-interstate pipelines. NGSA estimates that a 50 million MMBtu threshold 

would capture 90 percent of the relevant intrastate pipeline volumes. NGSA comments at 

5-6. We have been unable to duplicate NGSA’s methodology used to derive this figure, 

although we note that NGSA has included certain interstate volumes and excluded some 

non-interstate volumes in its calculations. 

121 We believe that a 50 million MMBtu annual threshold for “major non-interstate 

pipelines” is appropriate since this threshold includes almost all non-interstate pipelines 

that interconnect with major hubs. However, experience with pipeline postings following 

implementation of this Final Rule could lead us to revisit this determination in the future. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 50 - 

 

66. The 50 million MMBtu delivery threshold is likewise consistent with the threshold 

used in the Commission’s FERC Form No. 2 requirements. FERC Form No. 2 is a 

compilation of financial and operational information filed by interstate natural gas 

pipelines. An interstate natural gas pipeline must file a FERC Form No. 2 if it transports 

or stores for a fee volumes of natural gas greater than 50 million Dth.122 If an interstate 

natural gas pipeline transports or stores for a fee volumes of natural gas less than 

50 million Dth, it is not considered a major pipeline and files FERC Form No. 2A, which 

entails a lesser accounting burden. 

67. By adopting the significantly higher 50 million MMBtu delivery threshold, the 

Commission also will eliminate compliance burdens on many smaller pipelines which 

may have fewer resources to meet the posting requirement. We agree with various 

commenters that the 10 million MMBtu delivery threshold in the Posting NOPR would 

have burdened smaller pipelines without providing a proportionate amount of useful 

information. A review of EIA Form 176 data for those pipelines that describe themselves 

to EIA as intrastate pipelines is illustrative. Under a 10 million MMBtu delivery 

threshold, thirty-seven of such pipelines would be required to post. In contrast, under a 

122 18 CFR 260.1(b). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 51 - 

 

50 million MMBtu delivery threshold, only sixteen of such pipelines will be required to 

post. 123

68. Additionally, the Commission clarifies the definition of major non-interstate 

pipeline in a few other respects. The Commission uses the term “deliveries” instead of 

“flows” for determining the threshold. We believe that the term “deliveries” is a more 

precise term and is more easily understood by both pipelines and their customers. 

Further, the delivery threshold for defining a “major non-interstate pipeline” must be 

measured by a non-interstate pipeline’s average deliveries for the previous three calendar 

years. If in the previous three calendar years, a non-interstate pipeline’s deliveries 

averaged greater than 50 million MMBtu then it would be required to post the 

information required under this Final Rule. This approach, too, is consistent with the 

Commission’s FERC Form No. 2 requirements.124

123 Looking at the EIA data another way also supports the 50 million MMBtu 

delivery threshold. The 50 million MMBtu threshold would capture 85 major noninterstate pipelines that do not qualify under the exemptions. These 85 pipelines flow 

greater than 75 percent of total non-interstate volumes, according to the EIA Form 176 

data. The Commission’s definition of “major non-interstate” does not match exactly the 

categories used by EIA. Thus, these numbers may differ. 

124 See FERC Form No. 2, Instructions, p. i, http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/eforms/form-2/form-2.pdf (“Each natural gas company whose combined gas 

transported or stored for a fee exceed 50 million dekatherms in each of the previous three 

years must submit FERC Form Nos. 2 and 3-Q”). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 52 - 

C. Scheduled Flow Information on Major Non-Interstate Pipelines

1. Posting NOPR

69. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission proposed to require major non-interstate 

pipelines to post information regarding capacity, scheduled flow volumes, and actual 

flow volumes.125

2. Comments

70. Several commenters assert that scheduled volume information would provide 

sufficient insight on supply and demand fundamentals to meet the Commission’s 

transparency goals. TPA, for example, claims that “[t]he use of scheduled volumes is 

widespread within the natural gas industry and is the current standard used by interstate 

natural gas pipelines” and would provide the transparency that the Commission wants at 

minimal costs.126 Similarly, Kinder Morgan Intrastate maintains that actual flows do not 

reflect the actual supply and demand picture due to, for instance, back-hauls, operational 

balancing agreements, equipment outages, and other operating conditions.127 

Commenters object to the requirement that non-interstate pipelines post actual flows as 

overly burdensome. For example, Kinder Morgan Intrastate objects to the cost of posting 

 125 Posting NOPR at P 22 and 49. 

126 TPA Comments at 8. 

127 Kinder Morgan Intrastate at 13-14. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 53 - 

scheduled volumes; it estimates that the proposal would cost $250,000 for information 

technology modifications to obtain and post scheduled volumes and another $250,000 for 

information technology modifications to obtain and post actual flow volumes.128 TPA 

recommends posting of only scheduled volumes rather than actual volumes as a way to 

significantly reduce the costs of compliance with the Final Rule.129 

71. TIPRO supports the posting of actual flows as a way to verify scheduled activity 

as compared to actual activity, but acknowledges that posting of actual flows may not be 

feasible on a daily basis and that should be taken into account in the final rulemaking.130

3. Commission Determination

72. We will not require major non-interstate pipelines to post actual flow 

information. As noted by Kinder Morgan Intrastate, the information gained from 

requiring non-interstate pipelines to post actual flows would not be that much greater 

than that gained from the posting of scheduled volumes, particularly given that noninterstate pipelines are not required to provide no-notice service (although some do). 

73. We recognize that some non-interstate pipelines will incur costs to comply with 

this rule, including the posting of scheduled volumes. However, we believe that the 

 128 Kinder Morgan Intrastate at 12. Kinder Morgan estimates additional costs for 

obtaining flow information at segments, which is not required in the Final Rule. 

129 TPA Comments at 6-7. 

130 TIPRO Comments at 4. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 54 - 

 

benefits of posting and the need for this rule outweigh those costs. In any event, we do 

not believe that the costs are as great as those estimated by commenters. Commenters’ 

estimated costs included the cost of metering at segments, but posting at segments is not a 

requirement of this Final Rule.131 Similarly, commenters’ estimated costs include the 

cost of new metering and the posting of actual flow information, but posting actual flow 

is, likewise, not a requirement of this Final Rule. We also disagree with Kinder Morgan 

Intrastate’s estimated $250,000 in costs to obtain and post volumetric information.132 

The Commission believes that this figure is too great because, as discussed by TPA, 

“most of the information already collected by intrastate pipelines relates to scheduled 

volumes at receipt and delivery points....” 133

131 Our decision not to require posting by segment is discussed infra. 

132 Kinder Morgan Intrastate at 12. 

133 Our staff’s research indicates that such costs could be less than $30,000 for 

major non-interstate pipelines. The estimate includes both the software and labor costs 

associated with implementing the rule. Software costs include a one-time capital cost 

(amortized over ten years) to create a standard informational posting website for 

reporting scheduled volumes and the monthly fees associated with maintaining this site. 

In addition, the cost factors daily labor costs to upload this information on the Internet 

and to have an attorney or compliance office review these postings on a routine basis. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 55 - 

D. Receipt and Delivery Point Posting for Major Non-Interstate Pipelines

1. Posting NOPR

74. The Posting NOPR sought comments regarding whether the Commission’s 

transparency goals could be sufficiently advanced through the posting of flows in and out 

of major market hubs and, if so, which hub-related data should be reported.134 The 

Commission suggested two possible approaches to postings by non-interstate pipelines. 

First, under a delivery threshold approach, whether a non-interstate pipeline posts flow 

information depends on the amount of flows or deliveries the non-interstate pipeline 

flows or delivers annually at the hub. Second, under a market hub approach, or market 

hub alternative, whether a non-interstate pipeline posts flow information depends on 

whether it interconnects to a major market hub. The Commission sought comment on 

adopting a market hub approach, but did not propose a market hub approach. 

75. The Posting NOPR also proposed that non-interstate pipelines post flow 

information for “major points or segments.” We did not delineate for which “major 

points or segments” a major, non-interstate pipeline should post but requested comment 

on the subject. The Posting NOPR proposed that non-interstate pipelines post “on a daily 

 134 Posting NOPR at P 75. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 56 - 

basis on an Internet web site and in downloadable file formats, in conformity with 

section 284.12 of this chapter, equal and timely access to” flow information.135

2. Comments

76. Several commenters support a market hub approach (as opposed to a points or 

segment-based approach) for determining which non-interstate pipelines should post flow 

information.136 Chevron Pipelines argue that a market hub approach would “ensure and 

facilitate more accurate pricing with little loss of meaningful information.”137 EOG 

Resources supports posting at the thirteen market hubs referred to in the Initial and 

Posting NOPRs because it would more likely provide meaningful information on flows 

affecting wholesale natural gas markets and would cost less than the proposed posting 

requirement.138 Atmos also advocates posting at the thirteen hubs because the hubs 

represent market points where index prices are regularly published and the market hubs 

 135 See new section 284.14(a). 

136 See, e.g., National Fuel Distribution Comments at 2. 

137 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 27. 

138 EOG Resources Comments at 11; see also Oklahoma Corporation Commission 

Comments at 4; Shell Comments at 11-17. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 57 - 

 

“come closer than any other points to satisfying the statutory requirement that the 

information be about physical pricing at wholesale and interstate commerce.”139

77. Yates asserts that a market hub approach would address the lack of supply and 

demand information in production areas because the thirteen major market hubs are 

located in the major production areas in Louisiana and Texas.140 Supply and demand 

information, according to this commenter, is available for other production areas through 

interstate postings.141 Similarly, because the market hub approach focuses on the Gulf 

Coast, Yates claims, it would address the goal of understanding the effects of a major 

disruption in that area. 142

78. Other commenters oppose adoption of a market hub approach. Royalty Owners 

contend that limiting the postings to hubs would exclude vast, relevant segments of the 

intrastate system. For instance, Royalty Owners declare that, since Oklahoma does not 

have one of the thirteen market hubs listed in the Posting NOPR, every pipeline in the 

state could be exempt, yet Oklahoma is the third largest producing state with 

139 Atmos Comments at 7. 

140 Yates Comments at 6-8. 

141 Yates Comments at 7. 

142 Id. at 7-8. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 58 - 

 

approximately 8.8 percent of the nation’s total production.143 TIPRO similarly opposes 

limiting the proposal to only pipelines that flow in and out of major hubs because 

significant information would be lost and the transparency goals would not be met.144 

79. Commenters also addressed possible postings by receipt and delivery points. 

Several commenters object to the fact that the Posting NOPR did not define the “major 

points of receipt and delivery” at which non-interstate pipeline would be required to post 

flow information. Atmos believes that the lack of a definition of major points hindered 

the ability to comment on the burden and costs of the proposal.145 NGSA suggests 

requiring the posting of flow information at receipt and delivery points that flow on 

average more than 15 mmcf/day and at all metered points.146 PGC requests that the Final 

Rule exclude posting at points serving private pipelines or LDC bypasses, noting the 

Commission’s comments that it was not interested in posting for “extremely small points 

connected to one or a few customers.”147

143 Royalty Owners Comments at 2. 

144 TIPRO Comments at 2. 

145 Atmos Comments at 5; see also TPA Comments at 32; Calpine Comments at 

9-11. 

146 NGSA Comments at 7-10. 

147 PGC Comments at 2. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 59 - 

n 

 

80. Several commenters express concern that the public posting of flow information at 

receipt and delivery points could result in a competitive disadvantage for individual 

customers.148 TPA objects to the posting of design capacity for a point as it would allow 

a determination of a non-interstate pipeline’s available capacity.149 Kinder Morgan 

Intrastate contends that the posting proposal would harm its end-use customers by 

causing the release of confidential information.150 To avoid this result, Kinder Morgan 

Intrastate suggests that the Commission exempt the reporting of information regarding 

deliveries made to power generators, LDCs and industrial customers. 151 Calpine seeks 

to keep confidential an individual customer’s transportation volumes and consumptio

patterns by excluding individual customer laterals and focusing the posting requirement 

on high-volume segments with multiple shippers.152 But, as to confidentiality, Bentek 

observes that data for power plants and nearly 800 industrial facilities that are directly 

connected to interstate natural gas pipelines is posted daily with “no apparent adverse 

148 See, e.g., Atmos Comments at 8. 

149 TPA Comments at 16. 

150 Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 19. 

151 Id. at 22. 

152 Calpine Comments at 5. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 60 - 

 

impact.”153 Bentek concludes that the Commission should not “protect something in the 

non-interstate context that is not protected in the interstate context.”154

81. Several commenters object to posting information on segments. Atmos opposes 

posting information at segments because it does not measure flows at segments.155 

Atmos also states that it has 1,200 receipt and delivery points on its system and thousands 

of minor ones resulting in a multitude of possible postings for segments.156 PG&E urges 

the Commission to focus on receipt and delivery points on non-interstate pipelines, rather 

than on mainline segments because posting at segments would not provide any 

information that is not already apparent from posting capacity, scheduled volume and 

actual flows at receipt and delivery points.157 In this regard, other commenters maintain 

that the requirement to post flows at segments would create a significant burden.158 TPA 

explains that the estimates of costs from the proposed requirement to post flow 

information arises from the assumption that the proposal entails reporting at segments: 

153 Bentek Comments at 9. 

154 Id.

155 Atmos Comments at 5. 

156 Id. at 6. 

157 PG&E Comments at 5. 

158 See, e.g., TPA Comments at 25-26; Atmos Comments at 5. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 61 - 

 

the burdens and costs associated with the proposed rule would be 

substantially greater than the Commission estimated. A large reason for 

this is that intrastate pipelines do not typically collect information related to 

segment flow – most of the information already collected by intrastate 

pipelines relates to scheduled volumes at receipt and delivery points, rather 

than segments.[159]

For instance, Atmos estimates that determining actual gas flows at major pipeline 

segments would require a capital investment of at least $13 million.160 Kinder Morgan 

Intrastate estimates that installing meters to measure flow at segments would cost 

approximately $62.7 million.161 The ONEOK Gathering Companies observe that 

narrowly defining the term “major point or mainline segment” in proposed section 

284.14(a) would reduce the number of new meters that would need to be installed, 

operated and maintained and would thus keep the burden to a minimum.162 TPA 

contends that adding segment meters to a pipeline would cause a drop in pressure.163 

159 TPA Comments at 25. 

160 Atmos Comments at 5. 

161 Kinder Morgan Intrastate at 11. 

162 ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 12-13. 

163 TPA Comments at 41. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 62 - 

3. Commission Determination

82. The Commission determines that a major non-interstate pipeline must post 

scheduling information for each receipt and delivery point with a design capacity of equal 

to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day (a point-based delivery threshold). In addition, a 

non-interstate pipeline must post the design capacity for each such point. Specific 

information that is to be posted is discussed below.164 Postings at market hubs or for 

segments will not be required. 

a. Posting at Receipt and Delivery Points

83. The delivery threshold approach adopted herein will provide broader, more useful 

information about the supply and demand fundamentals that underlie the interstate 

natural gas market than a hub-based approach and at a cost less than a segment-based 

approach. The delivery threshold approach is not limited to a few market hubs or 

published pricing points. It will provide information about flows that either eventually 

feed into market hubs or that affect pricing at those market hubs. Such market hubs or 

published pricing points are generally already relatively liquid -- the delivery threshold 

approach will promote transparency at less liquid and currently less transparent points. 

 164 We remind pipelines that must comply with this Final Rule that the 

Commission has established a help desk to facilitate responses to questions regarding 

compliance with our regulations. See Obtaining Guidance on Regulatory Requirements, 

123 FERC ¶ 61,157 (2008). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 63 - 

 

84. Posting points’ design capacity will allow the Commission and market participants 

to better determine availability, a key component of supply and demand fundamentals. 

Market observers may estimate availability by subtracting scheduled volumes from 

design capacity. Requiring the posting of design capacity will allow shippers and other 

market observers to understand the availability of transportation that affects interstate 

wholesale markets. Further, this approach is consistent with the Commission’s policies 

for interstate natural gas pipelines. In Order No. 637, the Commission stated that 

interstate natural gas pipelines had the option of posting at either (i) receipt and delivery 

points or (ii) segments. It has been our experience that most, but by no means all, 

interstate pipelines elect to post by receipt and delivery point and not by segment. 

85. Some commenters object to the threshold approach as not advancing transparency 

in the interstate market because, for example, as they claim “[v]ery few intrastate 

delivery or receipt points and no intrastate segments exist at the same location as 

published pricing indices. If these points do not represent established pricing points for 

the interstate market, there is no advancement of the increased price transparency goal 

from the proposed reporting.”165 This criticism assumes that only flow information for a 

published pricing point can promote transparency. First, this assumption is incorrect 

because prices are affected by flows that feed a pricing point or that affect the supply 

165 Atmos Comments at 7. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 64 - 

 

available to a pricing point. Second, this assumption incorrectly assumes that price 

transparency is solely about the price of natural gas at published price indices. Price 

transparency also includes the price of transportation of natural gas. Congress 

contemplated that this price transparency would be derived from not only information 

about prices but also information about availability. Section 23 of the NGA authorizes 

the Commission to obtain “information about the availability” of natural gas, in addition 

to information about the “prices” of natural gas. Unlike the market hub approaches, the 

delivery threshold approach would obtain information regarding availability of 

transportation broadly which would facilitate price transparency of both “sales and 

transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce....”166

86. We believe that a delivery threshold will be less burdensome for major noninterstate pipelines than either a hub-based or segment-based approach as many such 

pipelines already collect such information. These pipelines may incur some additional 

costs to comply with the Final Rule’s posting requirements, however, we believe the 

substantial transparency benefits, discussed above, outweigh those costs. In any event, 

the Commission expects that compliance costs will not be nearly as great as those 

estimated by some commenters. As discussed above, most commenters’ cost estimates 

include the cost of metering at segments, but posting at segments is not a requirement. 

166 Section 23(a)(1) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 65 - 

 

Other cost estimates include the cost of metering and posting actual flow information, but 

posting actual flow information is, likewise, not a requirement. 

87. Only a few commenters provided cost estimates that did not assume obtaining and 

posting flow information for pipeline segments and that did not assume obtaining and 

posting actual flow information. Kinder Morgan Intrastate, for example, estimated a cost 

of $250,000 for obtaining and posting scheduled volume information.167 The 

Commission believes that this figure is likely exaggerated because, as noted by TPA, 

“most of the information already collected by intrastate pipelines relates to scheduled 

volumes at receipt and delivery points.”168 We believe that the costs of collecting 

existing scheduled volume information and posting it on a website is likely to be far 

less.169

88. Lastly, we have carefully considered the arguments by some commenters that 

additional pipeline postings could affect the competitive position of customers who have 

a dedicated delivery point with a design capacity equal to or greater than 15,000 

MMBtu/day on a major, non-interstate pipeline. In this respect, the regulations that we 

adopt here may affect “fair competition, and the protection of consumers” -- 

167 Kinder Morgan Intrastate at 12. 

168 TPA Comments at 25. 

169 As noted above, supra note 130, our staff’s research indicates that such costs 

could be less than $30,000 per year. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 66 - 

 

considerations that the Commission must take into account pursuant to section 23(a)(1) of 

the NGA. Nonetheless, information about the scheduled volumes to a customer with a 

delivery point with a capacity greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day will provide useful 

information to the Commission, market participants, and other market observers and will 

greatly increase market transparency. We believe that this benefit outweighs the 

concerns about publicly posting information about scheduled volumes to such a 

customer. Further, we understand that such customers would be placed in the same 

situation as customers on interstate natural gas pipelines with whom they often 

compete.170 Currently, interstate natural gas pipelines post daily scheduled volumes for 

delivery points dedicated to a single customer regardless of the size of the meter. There 

have been no indications that competitive balance has been harmed since the interstate 

requirement to post was instituted. 

89. The Commission will require all postings to be public; we will not provide for 

posting information to be kept confidential as requested by some commenters. In 

section 23(a)(2) of the NGA, Congress called for any transparency rule to provide for the 

“dissemination, on a timely basis, of information about the availability and prices of 

170 Those customers whose delivery point has a design capacity of less than 

15,000 MMBtu/day would not be affected. Those customers of non-interstate pipelines 

that did not flow greater than 50 million MMBtu per year also would not be affected. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 67 - 

natural gas sold at wholesale and interstate commerce to the Commission, State 

commissions, buyers and sellers of wholesale natural gas, and the public.”171

90. In this Final Rule we determine that each major non-interstate pipeline must post 

information for each receipt or delivery point with a design capacity equal to or greater 

than 15,000 MMBtu/day. We believe that this threshold represents significant load at 

delivery points (major pipeline interconnections, substantial industrial use, etc.) and 

major receipt points. However, the 15,000 MMBtu/day threshold should be sufficiently 

large so as to exclude insignificant or minor points on a pipeline system. To put this 

threshold in context, 15,000 MMBtu/day corresponds roughly to the gas used by an 85 

MW baseload gas fired power plant at a relatively efficient heat rate of 7,500 Btu/kWh – 

a facility that could serve over 40,000 households each with a 2 kW load. 

91. The Commission will require posting based on each receipt and delivery point’s 

design capacity rather than average flows at a point because posting at points based on 

design capacity should be less burdensome for pipelines. The average flows over a 

receipt or delivery point may change from year-to-year and designation of posting points 

based upon fluctuating averages would require pipelines to add and subtract points from 

 171 Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 & Supp. V 2005) 

(emphasis added). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 68 - 

posting on a rolling basis. By comparison, points’ design capacities are relatively fixed 

and lend themselves to stable posting requirements. 

92. In the circumstance where the design capacity of a receipt or delivery point could 

vary according to operational or usage conditions, a major non-interstate pipeline must 

post the design capacity for the most common operating conditions of its system during 

peak periods. This guidance is identical to that provided to interstate natural gas 

pipelines in Order No. 637 regarding postings. Also consistent with our directives in 

Order No. 637, a pipeline’s posting of the total design capacity of a point is not a daily 

posting requirement, but pipelines must update this information from time-to-time as 

changes in design capacity occur. 

93. The Commission will not require major non-interstate pipelines to post 

information for each point that has a meter as suggested by NGSA. Such a requirement 

would not be uniform for each pipeline as some systems have significantly more physical 

meter points than others. Further, such a requirement could create a disincentive for a 

major non-interstate pipeline to install new meters. 

94. The Commission will require that a major, non-interstate pipeline post the 

following scheduled volume information for each receipt and delivery point that has a 

design capacity equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day: Transportation Service 

Provider Name, Posting Date, Posting Time, Nomination Cycle, Location Name, 

Additional Location Information if Needed to Distinguish Between Points, Location 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 69 - 

 

Purpose Description (Receipt, Delivery, or Bilateral), Design Capacity, Scheduled 

Volume, Available Capacity, Measurement Unit (Dth, MMBtu, or MCf). 

95. Regarding the timing of postings, the Commission considers that scheduled flow 

information that is not provided on a daily basis is simply untimely and of vastly 

diminished use to market participants. We believe that, in this regard, our interstate 

natural gas pipeline postings set an appropriate standard: postings should occur at least 

on a daily basis. Further, this standard conforms to Congress’ direction in section 23 of 

the NGA, which requires that our transparency rules “provide for the dissemination, on a 

timely basis, of information about the availability and prices of natural gas....”172

96. These postings will provide information comparable to the daily postings made by 

interstate natural gas pipelines. Major non-interstate pipelines must post scheduled 

volumes according to a daily posting deadline. Currently, interstate natural gas pipelines 

must provide at least four nomination cycles to their shippers with the following 

nomination: timely, evening, intra-day 1, and intra-day 2.173 Once these volumes are 

scheduled, they must be posted on the public Internet under Operationally Available 

Capacity section of an interstate natural gas pipeline’s Informational Postings according 

172 Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA (emphasis added); 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 

& Supp. V 2005). 

173 Standard 1.3.2, Nominations Related Standards, North American Energy 

Standards Board, Wholesale Gas Quadrant, July 31, 2002. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 70 - 

to the following cycle deadlines: timely (no later than 4:30 p.m. central clock time for 

the day prior to gas flow); evening (no later than, 9:00 p.m. central clock for the day prior 

to gas flow); intra-day 1 (no later than 5:00 p.m. on flow day); and intra-day 2 (no later 

than 9:00 p.m. on flow day). Currently, major non-interstate pipelines employ a variety 

of nomination deadlines on their systems. Some use the standard North American 

Energy Standards Board (NAESB) guidelines followed by interstate natural gas 

pipelines; others do not have specific nomination deadlines. 

97. The Commission will require that major non-interstate pipelines post scheduled 

volumes no later than 10:00 p.m. central clock time the day prior to gas flow. This 

deadline occurs after interstate natural gas pipelines are required to post their evening 

cycle schedule confirmations by receipt and delivery point. The deadline enables noninterstate pipelines ample time to review their gas control set-up for the next day and 

limits the burden of posting to a single, daily reporting cycle. 

98. Regarding comments made by TPA, the Commission clarifies that the pipeline 

posting regulations do not impose NAESB requirements on non-interstate pipelines. 

Rather, the proposed regulations required a major non-interstate pipeline to post daily its 

scheduled volumes, “in conformity with § 284.12 of this chapter....” The commenter 

erroneously assumes that this would require a non-interstate pipeline to conform to all of 

section 284.12 instead of to conform with the manner of posting set forth in that section. 

The Commission clarifies that posting pipelines need only comply with the manner of 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 71 - 

posting outlined in section 284.12 and need not comply with all other requirements of 

that section. 

b. Posting at Market Hubs or by Segment

99. The Commission identified, in the Initial and Posting NOPRs, thirteen market 

hubs served by both interstate and non-interstate pipelines as a way to illustrate and 

provide examples of the wider range of deficient information about the physical natural 

gas market. We asked for comment on whether these thirteen hubs should help 

determine which non-interstate pipelines should post flow information.174 Some 

commenters seized on these thirteen market hubs as a way to define the particular points 

at which pipelines that should post flow information. While the Commission adopts a 

posting method based upon points of receipt and delivery, the Commission appreciates 

the effort that commenters expended in evaluating the Posting NOPR and proposing other 

alternatives (including posting at market hubs) as well as comments on posting by 

segment. We now explain why we are not adopting any of these alternatives. 

100. The market hub alternatives proposed by NGSA and TPA focus on locations 

which have obvious import to understanding pricing in the interstate markets. However, 

we believe that a hub-based approach would be unwieldly at best and would not provide 

the data needed to meet the Commission’s transparency goals. The market hub 

 174 Posting NOPR at P 71. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 72 - 

alternatives would require posting only by those non-interstate pipelines that connect to 

major market hubs. These alternatives would be quite difficult to implement and would 

provide insufficient information to market participants. 

101. The market hub alternatives also present too great a challenge in trying to keep up 

with the constantly changing nature and location of market hubs. Even the initial 

identification of relevant market hubs would present a challenge. Market hubs are 

uniform only in that they serve as pricing points; they are not uniform physically. There 

is a wide variety of hub types: pooling points, salt-cavern based storage hubs, and 

pipeline hubs (including one, two, or even three different pipelines). In spite of this lack 

of uniformity, a pipeline posting would require physical posting as if every market hub 

were physically the same. In such circumstances, posting information would not be 

comparable among different hubs and the resulting data would be of marginal value. 

102. After market hubs were initially determined, ongoing challenges would remain. A 

regulatory listing of market hubs would need to be established and maintained, yet 

trading in the market determines which market hubs are, in fact, relevant to the market as 

a whole. This list of relevant market hubs would need to be constantly modified as 

trading trends evolved. For instance, on July 2, 2008, Gas Daily reported on numerous 

changes involving price reporting and the establishment of new trading hubs, including 

El Paso South Mainline. El Paso South Mainline is a market hub that, under a market 

hub approach, could be considered as a market hub at which interconnected pipelines 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 73 - 

 

should post flow information. New pipelines would also change which market hubs were 

important to the overall transparency of the market.175 The listing of specific hubs could 

not keep up with this constantly changing market, would require the commitment of 

significant Commission resources, and would result in perpetual regulatory uncertainty 

regarding posting obligations. Each time a market hub were added to the list of relevant 

hubs, a new set of pipelines would be required to begin posting information. 

103. An additional drawback, particular to NGSA’s proposed market hub approach, 

would be determining how far upstream of the market hub a non-interstate pipeline 

should post data. NGSA proposes only postings of flow information at the pipeline 

immediately connected to the market hub. 176 This limitation would result in too little 

information: it would provide flow information only at the immediate interconnecting 

pipeline. The Commission, market participants, and observers would lose significant 

information from a supply-chain standpoint. 

104. The TPA market hub alternative would provide even less information and less 

benefit to market participants and observers. Because the TPA market hub alternative 

would not include points upstream of the market hub interconnection, this alternative 

would provide no information about the availability of transportation to the market hub. 

175 IPAA Comments at 3. 

176 NGSA Reply Comments at 2. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 74 - 

 

The Commission’s experience with postings by interstate natural gas pipelines suggests 

that the value of such posting is to understand the availability of supply at different points 

on a pipeline, not just the one point at the interconnection. Further, if the market hub 

interconnection is with an interstate natural gas pipeline, the interstate natural gas 

pipeline already posts scheduled volume information for that receipt point, thus rendering 

the TPA proposal redundant for many points.177 

105. Similarly, based upon comments we received in response to the Posting NOPR, 

we will not require posting of data by segment. As noted by TPA, “most of the 

information already collected by intrastate pipelines relates to scheduled volumes at 

receipt and delivery points, rather than segments.”178 Thus, the requirement in the Final 

Rule focuses on obtaining and posting information already collected by intrastate 

pipelines: we will require posting of scheduled volumes and posting by receipt and 

delivery points, rather than segments.179

 

(continued...) 

177 The AGA states, in objecting to posting such points for local distribution 

companies, that requiring the posting of “daily information for receipt and delivery points 

that are interconnections with interstate pipelines would be unnecessarily redundant and 

would add no valuable information to the Commission’s or others’ understanding of the 

supply and demand conditions that directly affect the U.S. wholesale gas markets.” AGA 

Comments at 15. 

178 TPA Comments at 25. 

179 We note that some non-interstate pipelines currently post data regarding 

pipeline use and availability by segment. We wish to make clear that the Final Rule does 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 75 - 

106. We also appreciate the burden that would be placed upon major non-interstate 

pipelines if we were to adopt a segment-based posting approach. Nearly every 

commenter that discussed segment-based posting acknowledged that the costs of such a 

methodology would be substantial.180 We adopt a receipt and delivery point-based 

approach that will capture much of the same data as a segment-based approach, but that is 

less burdensome to implement. 

E. Exemptions to the Major Non-Interstate Pipeline Posting 

Requirements

107. In consideration of the comments received in response to the Posting NOPR, the 

Commission adopts three exemptions: for non-interstate pipelines upstream of a 

processing plant; for non-interstate pipelines that deliver almost exclusively to retail endusers; and for storage providers. First, a major non-interstate pipeline will be exempt 

from the posting requirement if it “fall[s] entirely upstream of a processing, treatment or 

dehydration plant.”181 This language excludes from the definition not only non-interstate 

pipelines located upstream of a processing plant but also those located upstream of a 

 

not preclude pipelines from posting such data. The Final Rule requires the posting of 

specific data by major non-interstate pipelines at certain points of receipt and delivery. A 

pipeline is free to post any additional data (e.g., additional points, postings by segment, 

etc.) that it believes would be useful to its customers or as required by other regulatory 

bodies. 

180 See, e.g., TPA Comments at 25-26. 

181 See new section 284.14(b)(1). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 76 - 

treatment or dehydration plant. Second, the Commission modifies the end-use 

exemption, excluding a non-interstate pipeline if it delivers more than 95 percent of its 

natural gas volumes directly to retail end-users.182 To determine eligibility for the retail 

exception, a major non-interstate pipeline must measure volumes by “average deliveries 

over the preceding three calendar years.”183 Third, the Commission provides a general 

exemption for storage providers.184

1. Non-Interstate Pipelines that are Upstream of a Processing, 

Treatment, or Dehydration Plant

a. Posting NOPR

108. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission proposed that non-interstate pipelines 

located upstream of a processing plant would be exempt from the proposed regulations185

and requested comment on this proposal.186

 182 See new section 284.14(b)(2). 

183 See new section 284.14(b)(4). 

184 See new section 284.14(b)(3). 

185 Posting NOPR at P 69. 

186 Id. at P 68. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 77 - 

b. Comments

109. Commenters generally support the exemption for pipelines upstream of the 

processing plant as price formation relies more on flows downstream of the processing 

plant.187 However, several commenters seek to clarify and, in some ways, expand the 

definition of processing plant. These commenters request that the exemption be 

expanded to exclude pipelines upstream of a treatment plant.188 Dow Pipeline seeks to 

include nitrogen processing in the definition of processing.189 Regency seeks to expand 

the exemption to exclude any pipeline upstream of a processing, treatment or dehydration 

plant used to remove liquid hydrocarbons or other substances from natural gas to meet 

transmission pipeline quality specifications.190 NGSA contends that a major noninterstate pipeline that lies upstream from another major non-interstate pipeline and 

delivers solely into a single non-interstate pipeline should be exempted from the posting 

requirement because its volume will be reported by the downstream pipeline.191

 187 See, e.g., Chevron Pipelines Comments at 22-23; TIPRO Comments at 5. 

188 Copano Energy Comments at 8-9; ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 

5; TPA Comments at 32. 

189 Dow Pipeline Comments at 2-3. 

190 Regency Comments at 11-13. 

191 NGSA Comments at 6. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 78 - 

 

110. Several commenters seek an exemption specifically for gathering pipelines.192 

These commenters argue that the exemption for pipelines upstream of a processing plant 

would not exclude all gathering pipelines.193 They note that the exemption for pipelines 

upstream of a processing plant was justified in part as a way to exempt gathering 

pipelines, but that it does not exempt all gathering pipelines.194 Shell asserts that a 

production and/or gathering line should not be considered a “pipeline” and request that 

the Commission define pipeline. 195

111. Some commenters assert that if gathering systems were required to post at all of 

their receipt and delivery points, the burden would be too great. For instance, Regency, 

which operates gathering systems, estimates that requiring posting of its gathering system 

would cost $6-10 million.196 These commenters request that the Commission exempt 

gathering pipelines by using the “primary function test.” 197 Dow Pipeline argues that, if 

192 Enbridge Comments at 2-4; EOG Resources Comments at 8-10; Gas Processors 

Comments at 3-5; TPA Comments at 30-31. 

193 ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 5-11; Crosstex Comments at 5; 

Enbridge Comments at 4-6 

194 Gas Processors Comments at 3-5. 

195 Shell Comments at 18-20. 

196 Regency Comments at 8-9. 

197 Copano Energy Comments at 8-9; Encana Comments at 5-8; EOG Resources 

Comments at 10-11; Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 21. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 79 - 

any portion of a major non-interstate pipeline located upstream of a processing plant, the 

pipeline should be excluded from the posting requirement.198

112. Several commenters note that many gathering facilities are downstream of a 

processing plant. 199 For instance, ONEOK Gathering Companies maintain that the 

proposed exemption for a pipeline that lies upstream of a processing facility is 

insufficient to exempt gathering facilities because gathering facilities have facilities 

downstream of a processing facility. This fact, ONEOK Gathering Companies describe, 

is recognized in the Commission’s primary function test for determining a gathering 

facility in which one factor is the location of the processing plant.200 The fact that the 

Commission did not delineate for which points a pipeline would post makes such an 

exemption even more necessary, according to ONEOK Gathering Companies, as the 

burden would be too great.

201

c. Commission Determination

113. The Commission adopts an exemption for major non-interstate pipelines that lie 

entirely upstream of a processing, treatment, or dehydration plant. The focus of this Final 

 198 Dow Pipeline Comments at 2-3. 

199 DCP Midstream Comments at 5. 

200 ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 7. 

201 Id. at 7-9. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 80 - 

Rule is to make available information on flows of gas that may be sold in interstate 

natural gas markets. Prior to processing, treatment, or dehydration, natural gas is 

generally not of sufficient quality to serve as a fungible product to use in evaluating 

supply and demand fundamentals underlying the interstate natural gas market. We 

clarify that nitrogen processing, as suggested by Dow Pipeline, would be considered 

processing at a processing plant for purposes of this exemption. Additionally, as 

requested by TPA, the Commission clarifies that a pipeline may be upstream of a 

processing plant if it flows into another line that flows into a processing plant. 

114. The Commission will not provide a general exemption for gathering pipelines. 

The increased delivery threshold of 50 million MMBtu and the exemption for pipelines 

that lie entirely upstream of a processing, treatment, or dehydration plant should be 

sufficient to exclude most gathering pipelines. Further, these exemptions as written will 

serve as a bright-line test for determining whether a major non-interstate pipeline should 

post. This contrasts with the “primary function test” advocated by some commenters. 

Adopting an exemption based on the “primary function test” would require a 

Commission determination of each gathering pipeline’s eligibility and would be 

burdensome for pipelines seeking to determine whether they must post information. 

Moreover, the “primary function test” is a test adopted by the Commission to determine 

whether a facility would fall outside of the scope of our traditional NGA jurisdiction 

under section 1 of the act. Use of this test could further confuse the distinction that the 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 81 - 

Commission makes here between its traditional section 1 and its new section 23 

jurisdiction. 

115. We also decline to adopt an exemption for pipelines that lie partially upstream and 

partially downstream of a processing, treatment, or dehydration plant. Such an 

accommodation would confuse the exemption and create compliance difficulties. In any 

event, again, we believe that the increased threshold mitigates any compliance difficulties 

posed for such pipelines. 

2. Non-Interstate Pipelines that Deliver More than Ninety-Five 

Percent of Volumes to Retail Customers

a. Posting NOPR

116. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission proposed that major non-interstate 

pipelines that deliver 95 percent of their volumes to end-users would be exempt from the 

posting requirements and requested comment on this proposal.202

b. Comments

117. Several commenters support an exemption for pipelines delivering almost 

exclusively to end-users contending that it would not result in a loss of significant market 

 202 Posting NOPR at P 69. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 82 - 

 

information.203 Indeed, some commenters request that a proposed exemption be 

expanded to include non-interstate pipelines that transport 80 percent of flows to endusers.204 Calpine seeks to lower the end-use threshold from 95 percent to 90 percent and 

asserts that such pipelines do not have a major impact on gas flow. Calpine contends that 

unforeseen outages of a large gas-consuming facility could cause a non-interstate pipeline 

to no longer be eligible for the exemption. Calpine acknowledges that this possibility is 

lessened by averaging deliveries over a three-year period as was proposed.205

118. AGA proposes to exempt any pipeline in which flows to non-end-users amounted 

to less than 10 million MMBtu. AGA is concerned that without its additional exemption, 

a pipeline that flowed more than the delivery threshold of 10 million MMBtu but whose 

flows to non-end-users were more than 500,000 MMBtu would be captured.206 Dow 

Chemical requests a categorical exemption for non-interstate pipelines that are owned or 

203 Dow Chemical Comments at 2; Dow Pipeline Comments at 2-3; Chevron 

Pipelines Comments at 23. 

204 ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 14-15; TPA Comments at 46-47; 

Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 22-23. 

205 Calpine Comments at 7-8. 

206 AGA Comments at 2. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 83 - 

operated by end-users and that are used to transport natural gas for use by such endusers.207 

119. Duke maintains that gas consumed by an LDC in the normal course of operations, 

such as fuel and lost-and-unaccounted for gas, should be included in the gas deemed 

delivered directly to end-users for purposes of this exemption.208 Duke contends that 

such gas facilitates performance by an LDC of its core function and is not pertinent to the 

United States wholesale market.209 Duke also argues that deliveries by one LDC to 

another LDC should be considered deliveries to another end-user for the purposes of the 

exemption.210 Duke reasons that such gas has left the interstate system.211

c. Commission Determination

120. With one substantial modification, the Commission adopts the exemption 

proposed in the Posting NOPR. Major non-interstate pipelines that flow greater than 

 207 Dow Chemical Comments at 2. 

208 Duke Comments at 7; see also AGA Comments at 11. 

209 Duke Comments at 7. 

210 Id. at 7-8; see also AGA Comments at 13. 

211 Duke Comments at 8. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 84 - 

95 percent of their volumes directly to retail customers (rather than all end-users) are 

exempted from the posting requirements.212

121. Recently, in Order No. 704-A, the Commission held that data regarding 

transactions with consumers at retail would not significantly assist us to fulfill our 

transparency responsibilities under section 23 of the NGA.213 There, we drew a 

distinction between a broad category of end-use transactions and transactions that occur 

at retail. As we discussed in that order, many end-use transactions have substantial 

impact on wholesale energy markets.214 For these reasons, we will define the exemption 

in the same terms described in Order No. 704-A and exempt pipelines delivering 95 

percent of their flow volumes under retail transactions (i.e., bundled transactions through 

an LDC at a state-approved tariff rate) to consumers. 

 212 Dow Intrastate requests clarification for its non-interstate pipeline that can 

deliver both to a processing plant and an end-user. It seeks to fit the non-interstate 

pipeline into one of the exemptions. The non-interstate pipeline delivers directly into a 

processing plant but can also deliver directly to an end-user. According to Dow 

Intrastate, in those circumstances, a pipeline could not qualify for the end-use exemption 

because 95 percent of the gas does not go to an end-user, it is delivered to the processing 

plant. It appears that the pipeline that Dow Intrastate describes does not lie entirely 

upstream of a processing plant. If the modified delivery point threshold adopted in this 

Final Rule does not address Dow Intrastate’s concern, it may file for a waiver of the 

regulations and the Commission will consider the matter in light of the facts presented. 

213 Order No. 704-A at P 40-43. 

214 Id. at P 40. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 85 - 

 

122. In light of the increase in the delivery threshold from 10 to 50 million MMBtu, we 

do not adopt the proposal of AGA to further expand this exemption. AGA proposes to 

exempt any pipeline in which flows to non-end-users amounted to less than 10 million 

MMBtu. AGA is concerned that without its additional exemption, a pipeline that flowed 

just more than the delivery threshold of 10 million MMBtu but whose flows to non-endusers were more than 500,000 MMBtu would be required to post.215 Because the 

Commission herein increases the delivery threshold proposed in the Posting NOPR, 

AGA’s concern is alleviated because such a non-interstate pipeline would not be required 

to post. 

123. Also, because of the increase in the delivery threshold, we will not lower the 

threshold for this exemption to 80 percent as requested by several commenters216 or to 

90 percent as proposed by Calpine. Lowering the retail delivery exemption to 80 or 

90 percent would allow some major non-interstate pipelines to avoid posting a significant 

amount of receipts and deliveries that are not made to consumers, which could result in 

the loss of a large amount of information about the interstate natural gas market. Further, 

we believe that commenters’ concerns largely are addressed by the increased delivery 

215 AGA Comments at 2. 

216 ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 14-15; TPA Comments at 46-47; 

Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 22-23. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 86 - 

 

threshold of 50 million MMBtu and by the requirement that the end-use percentages be 

determined on a three-year average. 

124. We find Calpine’s “concern[] that the ninety-five (95%) volume level is set too 

high to allow for unforeseen outages that affect large gas-consuming facilities” to be 

misplaced. Such outages could result in gas being redirected away from an end-user to a 

wholesale purchaser. This also could result in the pipeline delivering more than 5 percent 

of its flows to non-end-users therefore triggering the posting requirement. In such a 

circumstance, posting would be properly required. 

125. In response to other comments, we clarify that volumes transported from one LDC 

to another should not be deemed deliveries to retail consumers for purposes of the enduser exemption.217 The Commission will not exempt a non-interstate pipeline that 

delivers solely into a single non-interstate pipeline as suggested by NGSA.218 NGSA 

reasons that the downstream, non-interstate pipeline would post the flows at its receipt 

point. That may not be the case where the downstream, non-interstate pipeline does not 

meet the delivery threshold and is not required to post. 

217 Duke Comments at 7. 

218 NGSA Comments at 6. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 87 - 

126. Natural gas consumed or utilized for operational reasons by the posting pipeline

(such as for fuel or lost-and-unaccounted for gas) is deemed to be gas consumed “at 

retail” for purposes of determining whether a pipeline fits within this exemption. 

3. Non-Interstate Storage Providers

a. Posting NOPR

127. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission sought further comment from storage 

providers regarding the effect of the proposed rule on their businesses. Specifically, the 

Commission asked for comment on whether storage providers should provide data in 

aggregate form and whether an individual storage facility loses negotiating strength when 

its customers know the supply of available storage capacity.219

b. Comments

128. Some commenters support the proposal.220 For example, Calpine supports a daily 

posting requirement for storage providers, otherwise “[t]he supply chain would be 

incomplete.”221 Calpine contends that the information currently available about interstate 

 219 Posting NOPR at P 76-77. 

220 Calpine Comments at 12. 

221 Id. at 13. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 88 - 

 

storage facilities is “often too delayed or too aggregated to provide effective daily flow 

information” and information about non-interstate storage providers is even less useful.222

129. Storage providers generally object to the proposal, claiming, for example, that the 

proposal is anti-competitive in nature,223 the information is already available through 

other means,224 or that the daily posting requirements would produce distorted aggregate 

data and may yield inaccuracies.225 They oppose both (i) the posting of flow information 

by storage providers who qualify as major non-interstate pipelines, and; (ii) the posting 

by a non-interstate pipeline of flow information at a receipt or delivery point that serves a 

storage provider. 

130. In response to the Commission’s inquiry regarding the effect of the proposal on a 

storage provider’s negotiating position, commenters warn that revealing their actual 

storage position would cause them to lose negotiating strength,226 which could make the 

222 Id.

223 Enstor Comments at 3-5; Dow Chemical Comments at 2. 

224 See Jefferson Island Comments at 4-6; NISKA Comments at 4-5; Nisource 

Comments at 4-5; Williston Basin Comments at 16; EnergySouth Comments at 2, 5. 

225 Nisource Comments at 5; Total Peaking Comments at 11. 

226 Williston Basin Comments at 17. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 89 - 

 

storage business less profitable, discourage continued and new storage services, lower 

storage supply and increase prices.227 As explained by Enstor: 

a rule that requires [a storage provider] to reveal all daily 

injections and withdrawals into and out of each of its storage 

facilities would, in effect, reveal to the world what [its] 

storage position is on each day in each such storage 

facility.228 

131. Similarly, EnergySouth comments that revealing such competitively-sensitive 

information about individual facilities would degrade storage providers’ competitive 

abilities and provide “one-sided information advantage” to storage purchasers.229 This 

result, storage providers allege, would run contrary to section 23(a)(1) of the NGA, which 

requires the Commission to facilitate price transparency “having due regard for... fair 

competition” among other goals.230

227 EnergySouth Comments at 13. 

228 Enstor Comments at 6 n. 22; see also EnergySouth Comments at 2 and 11; 

Jefferson Island Comments at 7-8; NISKA Comments at 6-8; Nisource Comments at 

5 and 7-8; Williston Basin Comments at 17; Chevron Pipelines Comments at 32; Enstor 

Reply Comments at 10. 

229 EnergySouth Comments at 2, 11-12; see also EnergySouth Reply Comments at 

1-2. 

230 Section 23(a)(1) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 90 - 

 

132. Commenters also claim that the release of flow data from individual storage 

facilities could lead to increased prices.231 For instance, NiSource asserts that the posting 

of regionally specific storage volumes could result in artificially high prices, particularly 

where storage assets are operated on an integrated basis.232 Further, commenters suggest 

that flow information from storage providers would not be useful to market participants 

or the Commission.233 National Fuel Supply comments that “information about daily 

flows at each individual field has only operational, not commercial, significance, and its 

disclosure would place a burden on National Fuel Supply and other storage providers 

without facilitating price transparency.”234 

133. Several commenters state that the posting for storage providers should be done on 

an aggregated basis rather than on a facility-by-facility basis.235 Otherwise, NiSource 

reasons, market participants may use daily storage data to artificially increase natural gas 

231 See Chevron Pipelines Comments at 32; EnergySouth Comments at 2, 13; 

Nisource Comments at 9. 

232 Nisource Comments at 9. 

233 Total Peaking Comments at 11; National Fuel Supply Comments at 6; 

Williston Basin Reply Comments at 7. 

234 National Fuel Supply Comments at 6; National Fuel Supply Reply Comments 

at 5-6. 

235 See Enstor Comments at 5; Nisource Comments at 5; EnergySouth Comments 

at 10-11; Bentek Comments at 10; Comments of National Fuel Supply at 6. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 91 - 

 

prices when they believe demand is rising.236 Others contend that an aggregated posting 

by storage providers should parallel the postings of interstate storage providers. 

According to Enstor, many interstate natural gas pipelines post one aggregated, systemwide storage capacity number for all of their storage fields, regardless of the number of 

storage facilities.237 Enstor explains that if the Commission deems it necessary to require 

non-interstate storage providers to post daily storage capacity and withdrawal and 

injection capacities, the Commission should require all storage providers to report this 

information by specific location rather than by the entirety of their systems.238

134. Some commenters request clarification regarding possible storage provider 

postings. PG&E requests that the Commission clarify that by requiring storage providers 

to post “capacity” information, it would not be requiring storage providers to post 

inventory data.239 PG&E does not object to posting information concerning injections 

into and withdrawals from its storage facilities on an aggregated basis.240 

236 NiSource Comments at 5. 

237 Enstor Comments at 8. 

238 Id. at 9. 

239 PG&E Comments at 7; NISKA Comments at 7. 

240 PG&E Comments at 7. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 92 - 

135. Commenters propose different ways to limit storage provider posting obligations 

to address the above concerns. They suggest that the Commission exempt storage 

providers providing storage service under section 311 of the NGPA under market-basedrates241 or allow storage providers to post such information on a confidential, non-public 

basis.242 EnergySouth comments that “[m]arket-based rate storage providers lacking 

market power should be regulated under less intrusive gas market transparency rules, if 

under any such rules, than pipelines providing transportation services.”243

c. Commission Determination

136. In response to the comments received, the Commission will exempt non-interstate 

storage providers from the requirement to post information on the Internet.244 As 

discussed above, the Commission and other market observers would benefit substantially 

by increased transparency regarding the flow of natural gas on major non-interstate 

pipelines. We agree, however, with certain commenters that the Commission’s 

 241 See Chevron Pipelines Comments at 29; Jefferson Island Comments at 10; 

NISKA Comments at 4; see also Enstor Comments at 7 (stating that the Commission 

should put all storage providers on the same playing field and not exempt some operators 

from posting information because it is inherently not fair to entities taking on the 

“additional burden”). 

242 See PG&E Comments at 7; NISKA Comments at 5; Chevron Pipelines 

Comments at 30-31. 

243 EnergySouth Reply Comments at 3. 

244 See new section 284.14(a)(3). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 93 - 

transparency goals may not be substantially enhanced by a requirement that noninterstate storage providers separately post flow information. The Commission here does 

not require the posting of information regarding natural gas storage inventories for the 

same reason that it does not seek production information. The focus of the Final Rule is 

on the flow, not strictly the supply, of natural gas within the United States. 

137. Regarding flows into and out of non-interstate storage providers, we determine 

that relevant information is already captured by the requirements imposed on noninterstate pipelines in the promulgated regulations. That is, a major non-interstate 

pipeline with a receipt or delivery point at a connection with a storage provider is 

required to post scheduled flow data if the point has a design capacity greater than 15,000 

MMBtu per day. We believe that this posting will be sufficient to capture relevant flow 

information into and out of storage facilities. Further, as major non-interstate pipelines 

are already required by this Final Rule to post data for such points, requiring similar 

postings by storage providers would be duplicative and unduly burdensome. 

138. We disagree with the concerns raised by certain non-interstate storage provider 

commenters regarding competitive issues related to the posting of flow data. First, the 

Final Rule does not require storage providers to post any information. Rather, the 

information relating to flows into and out of storage facilities that the Commission 

requires to be posted is in the control of interconnected non-interstate pipelines. Second, 

the Commission is not requiring the posting of inventory or storage capacity data. Under 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 94 - 

these circumstances, we do not believe that the postings required in this Final Rule would 

have any deleterious effect on competition. 

4. Other Exemptions and Safe Harbor

a. Posting NOPR

139. While the Posting NOPR did not specifically suggest additional exemptions from 

the propose posting requirements, it solicited comments from interested entities regarding 

all aspects of the rule. 

b. Comments

140. Cranberry Pipeline requests an exemption for intrastate pipelines, such as itself, 

with a relatively small web-like configuration rather than a long-line system. 

Furthermore, Cranberry Pipeline requests an exemption for intrastate pipelines that 

operate in concentrated and transparent markets (such as Appalachia) in which supply 

and demand information is readily available.

245

141. Freeport requests that the Commission clarify that the definition of “major noninterstate pipeline” does not include facilities authorized pursuant to section 3 of the 

NGA that do not render stand-alone transportation service.246 Freeport asserts that 

 245 Cranberry Pipeline Comments at 5-7. 

246 Freeport Comments at 1. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 95 - 

 

because its sendout pipeline is more akin to a production facility than to a “major noninterstate pipeline,” it should not be subject to a posting requirement.247

142. SEMCO urges the Commission to exempt major non-interstate pipelines that sell 

and transport natural gas in the Alaska natural gas market because there are no market 

hubs in Alaska.248 For its part, Marathon contends that the Commission does not have 

jurisdiction over Alaskan pipelines and explains that natural gas pipeline activities in 

Alaska do not impact interstate commerce.249

143. Several commenters advocate for a safe harbor provision for good faith 

compliance.250 TPA argues in favor of a safe harbor provision.251 ONEOK Gathering 

advocates for “safe harbor” provisions to ensure upstream pipelines are not unfairly 

punished if posted capacities are based on reasonable assumptions about downstream 

247 Id. at 4. 

248 SEMCO Comments at 4-5. 

249 Marathon Comments at 2-8. 

250 AGA Comments at 18; Atmos Comments at 13; Copano Energy Comments at 

12. 

251 TPA Comments at 33; Crosstex Comments at 33. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 96 - 

 

pressures that differ from actual pressures.252 OGT explains that capacity on upstream 

pipelines varies due to the pressures of downstream pipelines.253 

144. In contrast, Royalty Owners state that any Final Rule should not contain a safe 

harbor contending that the Commission should be able to accommodate the few instances 

of honest mistakes -- “Penalties are in place for a reason.”254

145. AGA requests that distribution companies with Commission-approved service area 

determinations under section 7(f) of the NGA be excluded from the Final Rule, as such 

companies are considered “natural gas companies” under section (2)(6) of the NGA.255

146. Several commenters contend that the Commission should clarify that Hinshaw 

pipelines are not subject to the posting requirements for major, non-interstate pipelines. 

As explained by PSCo, a Hinshaw pipeline should not fall within the definition of 

“major, non-interstate pipeline” under the proposed regulation.256 PSCo also contends 

that flow information from a Hinshaw pipeline would not be useful in meeting the 

Commission’s goals for the pipeline posting requirements. 

252 ONEOK Gathering Comments at 18. 

253 Id.

254 Royalty Owners Comments at 2. 

255 AGA Comments at 6; Louisville Gas and Electric Co. Comments at 3-4. 

256 PSCo Comments at 3-4; see also AGA Comments at 6-7. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 97 - 

c. Commission Determination

147. The Commission will not provide a separate exemption for pipelines in 

“concentrated and transparent markets” as requested by Cranberry Pipeline.257 The 

increase in the threshold for the definition of major non-interstate pipelines should 

accommodate Cranberry Pipeline’s request for an exemption for “smaller” pipelines. It 

would be extremely difficult to create a test for what is a “concentrated and transparent” 

market. Such a test would create an undue burden on a pipeline and an unnecessary 

administrative burden on the Commission. 

148. Likewise, we decline to provide a separate exemption for sendout pipelines 

covered under section 3 of the NGA as requested by Freeport LNG. The flow 

information from such pipelines, if they were to meet the 50 million MMBtu delivery 

threshold, would provide valuable information to market participants, market observers 

and the Commission. Peak sendout at liquefied natural gas facilities may represent 

material volumes of natural gas within a region or trading location and, therefore, may 

significantly explain changes in prices. 

149. Similar reasoning applies to our decision not to categorically exclude Hinshaw 

pipelines or LDCs operating under a section 7(f) service area determination from the 

 257 Cranberry Pipeline describes these types of entities as intrastate pipelines that 

operate in concentrated and transparent markets (such as Appalachia) in which supply 

and demand information is readily available. Cranberry Pipeline Comments at 5-7 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 98 - 

 

posting requirements in this Final Rule. Hinshaw pipelines and entities that serve an 

interstate service area under NGA section 7(f) that meet or exceed the 50 million MMBtu 

delivery threshold are sizeable entities and flows on these pipelines may have substantial 

effect on the natural gas market, especially regionally. 

150. However, we will not impose the requirements of the Final Rule on non-interstate 

pipelines in Alaska. At this time, such pipelines do not have a sufficiently significant 

impact on the interstate natural gas market so as to warrant their inclusion in the Final 

Rule. 

151. The Commission will not adopt a “safe harbor” for posting. The Commission 

articulated a safe harbor in the Policy Statement on Price Indices,258 which grants a data 

provider that adopts certain reporting standards a rebuttable presumption that data 

submitted to index developers is accurate, timely, and submitted in good faith. However, 

a similar perpetual safe harbor is not warranted regarding the posting requirements set 

forth in this Final Rule. The Policy Statement on Price Indices sets forth standards that 

data providers could choose to adopt should they voluntarily elect to provide data to price 

index developers. One goal of the Policy Statement on Price Indices was to “encourage 

[industry participants] voluntarily to report energy transactions to providers or price 

258 Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets; Policy Statement on 

Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2003), clarified, 109 FERC 

¶ 61,184 (2004). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 99 - 

indices.” The safe harbor that we adopted in the Policy Statement on Price Indices was a 

direct extension of this policy goal. 

152. The posting requirements set forth in this Final Rule are mandatory posting 

requirements adopted consistent with the directives of EPAct 2005, not the voluntary 

reporting of price data to an index developer. There is no policy need to provide an 

incentive for posting the information required in this Final Rule similar to the 

encouragement to reporting price data to index developers. Other mandatory 

requirements, such as the filing of FERC Form No. 2, do not include such a safe harbor. 

For this reason, we are not persuaded that a perpetual safe harbor is warranted.259

F. Posting of No-Notice Service Information by Interstate Pipelines

1. Posting NOPR

153. The Posting NOPR proposed to require interstate natural gas pipelines to post 

actual flow information within 24 hours of the close of the gas day on which it flowed.260 

This proposed requirement, the Commission stated, would disseminate information about 

 259 Recently, in Order No. 704-A, the Commission declined to adopt a perpetual 

safe harbor for the annual reporting requirement for Form No. 552. FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,275 at P 69. While we did adopt a one-year safe harbor for 2009 filings of Form 

No. 552, we decline to do so here. As discussed below, interstate pipelines will be 

required to comply with the promulgated posting requirements within 60 days of the 

publication of this Final Rule in the Federal Register. Major non-interstate pipelines 

must comply within 150 days of publication. We are confident that pipelines subject to 

this Final Rule will be able to comply with the new regulations in a timely manner.

260 Posting NOPR at P 4. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 100 - 

no-notice service for interstate pipelines.261 The Commission observed that posting of 

actual flow information could fill the gap between scheduled and actual flows and allow 

market observers to ascribe price behavior with physical changes in flows, particularly in 

the northern tier of the country where no-notice service is more prevalent.262 The Posting 

NOPR also observed that posting of actual flow information could reduce the 

opportunities for market participants to exploit non-public flow information.263 We 

sought comments about implementation of the requirement to post actual flows on 

interstate natural gas pipelines in order to better understand the costs and benefits of such 

posting.264

2. Comments

154. Several commenters oppose the requirement that interstate pipelines post actual 

flow information as too burdensome in relation to the minimal information that would be 

gleaned. For example, INGAA contends that information regarding actual flows do not 

further market transparency because they do not reflect ongoing market dynamics rather 

 261 Id. at P 41. 

262 Id. 

263 Id. at P 42. 

264 Id. at P 2, 46. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 101 - 

 

they trace to transactions that have already been completed.265 Further, according to 

INGAA, actual flows are independent of the contract paths that INGAA asserts define 

market transactions.266 Several commenters contend, without specificity, that the posting 

of actual flows will be costly.267

155. Several commenters argue that the current posting of scheduled volume 

information provides sufficient transparency and there is no evidence that the posting of 

actual flows would increase transparency.268 Spectra states that scheduled volumes 

postings contain better and more timely data for the market than actual flow postings 

would contain.269 Spectra also points out that the market currently uses scheduled 

volume data to make decisions, and there is no evidence that the market is currently 

functioning in any way other than efficiently. 270 National Fuel Supply states that nonotice volumes are not important to understanding the market and “the Commission 

should not be concerned that information about no-notice volumes could be exploited in a 

265 INGAA Comments at 12; see also Chevron Pipelines Comments at 12-13. 

266 INGAA Comments at 13. 

267 See, e.g., id. at 17-18. 

268 Id. at 7; National Fuel Supply Comments at 4; Spectra Comments at 8; 

Williston Basin Comments at 3-5. 

269 Spectra Comments at 7; see also NiSource Comments at 5. 

270 Spectra Comments at 8. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 102 - 

 

manipulative or discriminatory manner”271 Similarly, Kinder Morgan Interstate 

maintains that the Commission offers no support that the posting of no-notice activity 

would prevent misconduct.272

156. Several commenters argue that the posting of actual flow information could 

confuse market participants due, for instance, to timing differences between when the 

original imbalances occur and when they are cleared.273 Commenters object to including 

actual flow information because it would include operational flows, such as flows 

reflecting maintenance activities, line pack management, blending and balancing, which 

are not relevant to the price formation process. 274 Kinder Morgan Interstate contends 

that no-notice activity is not useful in establishing future prices and does not reflect 

current market conditions; thus, it would not enhance price transparency.275

157. On the other hand, some commenters support the posting of actual flow 

information by interstate pipelines. Calpine asserts that actual daily flow information 

would allow an assessment of how accurately scheduled volumes reflect the actual 

271 National Fuel Supply Comments at 4-5. 

272 Id.

273 Williston Basin Comments at 3-5. 

274 Id. at 5-7; Chevron Pipelines Comments at 16; Total Peaking Comments at 12. 

275 Kinder Morgan Interstate Comments at 10. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 103 - 

 

volumes associated with activities in the real-time market, which “is especially critical in 

times of constraints caused by unplanned events or outages.”276 APGA supports posting 

of actual flow volume as it would provide market observers an important “missing piece 

of the puzzle” to understand what is transpiring in the market, both operationally and as 

to supply and demand fundamentals.277 The New York PSC supports obtaining actual 

flows from not just interstate pipelines, but also intrastate pipelines, as the data would 

provide market participants with increased understanding of daily trends in natural gas 

markets, including regional conditions and pipeline capacity available to resolve regional 

supply/demand imbalances, especially during peak demand or emergency conditions.278

158. Bentek’s comments suggest that the posting of actual volumes is one option to 

obtain data to ensure that no-notice service is transparent on interstate pipelines, but, 

alternatively, proposed that market observers rely on publication of no-notice volumes.279

159. Several commenters respond specifically to the Posting NOPR’s inquiry as to 

whether no-notice activity is reflected in trading activity or storage activity. Chevron 

Pipelines responds that the only no-notice activity that would equate to trading activity is 

276 Calpine Comments at 4. 

277 APGA Comments at 3-4. 

278 New York PSC Comments at 1. 

279 Bentek Comments at 3-5. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 104 - 

storage injections.280 Kinder Morgan Interstate contends that no-notice activity on their 

pipelines generally reflect storage withdrawals because the trading activity associated 

with storage withdrawals would have already occurred when the gas was purchased and 

injected into storage.281 Williston Basin states that on its system no-notice volumes are 

exclusively associated with storage activity.282 Chevron Pipelines describe no-notice 

service as commonly associated with two types of transactions: storage 

injections/withdrawals and imbalance management, including balancing under Operating 

Balancing Agreements.283

3. Commission Determination

160. While the Commission will not require interstate natural gas pipelines to post 

information regarding all actual flows, this Final Rule requires interstate natural gas 

pipelines to post the volumes of no-notice service flows284 at each receipt and delivery 

 280 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 17. 

281 Kinder Morgan Interstate Comments at 9. 

282 Id. 

283 Chevron Pipelines Comments at 13-14. 

284 See 18 CFR 284.7(a)(4) (requiring pipelines to provide no-notice service). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 105 - 

 

point before 11:30 a.m. central clock time (the timely cycle under NAESB Nomination 

Standard 1.32) three days after the day of gas flow.285

161. The Commission requires an interstate pipeline to provide no-notice service if 

such service was provided as of the effective date of Order No. 636.286 Accordingly, firm 

shippers that receive no-notice service can receive delivery of gas on demand up to their 

firm entitlements on a daily basis without incurring daily balancing and scheduling 

penalties. No-notice service is usually used by shippers when gas load is much higher 

than has been nominated and scheduled the previous day (due, perhaps, to unanticipated 

cold or hot temperatures). However, while Order No. 636 and its progeny mandated the 

adoption of no-notice service, the Commission has previously not required Internet 

posting of no-notice volumes. 

162. The absence of reporting of no-notice service means that the market cannot see 

large and unexpected increases in gas demand and therefore cannot understand price 

formation during such occasions. Information on no-notice volumes is valuable even 

posted after the no-notice gas flows because it allows market participants and other 

285 Total Peaking, Venice Gathering, and DCP Midstream sought in this 

proceeding to exempt specific interstate natural gas pipelines from the existing posting 

requirement. We believe the current posting requirements on interstate pipelines should 

not be reduced at this time and do not adopt any exemptions to that requirement. As 

always, interstate pipelines may request a waiver from the requirements. 

286 See Order No. 636-A at p. 30,574. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 106 - 

 

market observers to understand the historical patterns of flows and will enable them to 

better predict future no-notice flows. Requiring interstate pipelines to post no-notice 

volumes will meet the goals of the Commission with less of a burden on interstate natural 

gas pipelines than full posting of actual flows. 

163. The posting of no-notice service will be of particular importance in the northern 

tier of the country during extreme weather conditions. As we pointed out in the Posting 

NOPR, the gap between scheduled and actual flows occurs most commonly in this region 

of the country where a pipeline serves a local distribution company with significant space 

heating demand. In such circumstances, market observers find it more difficult to ascribe 

price behavior to physical changes in flows. Further, as observed by NGSA, “[o]n 

heating season peak days or days with wide intra-day weather swings, no-notice volumes 

can be significant; therefore, scheduled volumes are not a proxy for physical flow and, 

thus, do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of underlying market 

fundamentals.”287

164. The Commission has received many hotline and other informal calls from shippers 

with complaints about available service on interstate pipelines. Often, callers indicate 

confusion regarding discrepancies in pipeline postings of scheduled volumes that indicate 

that capacity should be available and a pipeline’s refusal to provide same-day service on 

287 NGSA Comments on the Initial NOPR at 10. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 107 - 

the grounds that there is no capacity available. This lack of available capacity is very 

often due to the use of no-notice service. Posting information about no-notice service, 

even after the fact, will make availability on interstate natural gas pipelines more 

transparent, consistent with section 23 of the NGA.288

165. Public posting of no-notice service information could also prevent other forms of 

misconduct with direct effects on natural gas in interstate commerce. The lack of public 

flow information could provide the opportunity for parties to engage in manipulative or 

unduly discriminatory behavior. By making major non-interstate pipeline flow 

information public, such transparency could discourage market participants from 

engaging in such activities. Therefore, we disagree with commenters that suggest that 

transparency will not be enhanced via the posting of no-notice flows. 

166. We believe this requirement to post no-notice service information would not be 

unduly burdensome for interstate pipelines. An interstate natural gas pipeline should 

already have information on the no-notice service it provides. Additionally, pipelines 

already have the existing information technology (i.e., Internet websites) for posting such 

information. We further reduce the posting burden for posting no-notice service by 

requiring such posts to occur within seventy-two hours after the applicable gas day. This 

compares to a twenty-four hour deadline as originally suggested in the Posting NOPR. 

 288 Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 & Supp. V 2005). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 108 - 

VI. Effective Date of the Final Rule and Compliance Deadlines

167. The Final Rule will become effective 30 days following publication in the Federal 

Register. Interstate pipelines subject to these new posting requirements must comply 

with the regulations promulgated herein no later than 60 days following such publication. 

Interstate pipelines already have Internet websites in place and likely have ready means 

in-place to capture data necessary to post information regarding no-notice service. Under 

these circumstances, we believe that a 60-day deadline is sufficient time for all interstate 

pipelines to comply with the regulations. 

168. While some major non-interstate pipelines have websites and data collection 

abilities similar to interstate pipelines, others may need additional time to put procedures 

in place to comply with the instant posting requirements. Therefore, we will give major 

non-interstate pipelines 150 days following publication of this Final Rule to come into 

compliance with the new regulations. This time will allow them sufficient time to update 

their information technology systems and establish an Internet website for the postings. 

This time frame for compliance will allow them to complete the current heating season 

without the need to implement new posting procedures while ensuring that new postings 

are available prior to the next heating season. While one commenter, Kinder Morgan 

Intrastate, estimated it would take one year “to complete the necessary IT upgrades and 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 109 - 

data reorganization,”289 that estimate assumed a requirement for obtaining and posting 

both actual flows and scheduled volumes on both mainline segments and on receipt and 

delivery points. As the regulations promulgated here do not require obtaining and 

posting actual flows or obtaining scheduled volumes from segments, Kinder Morgan 

Intrastates’ estimate is excessive. 

VII. Information Collection Statement

169. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require it to approve 

certain reporting and recordkeeping (information collection) requirements imposed by an 

agency.290 In this Final Rule, the Commission will set forth two requirements for the 

posting or collection of information, one for interstate and one for major non-interstate 

pipelines.291 The Commission has submitted notification of these proposed information 

collection requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.292 

 289 Kinder Morgan Intrastate at 8. 

290 5 CFR 1320.11. 

291 The OMB regulations cover both the collection of information and the posting 

of information. 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Thus, the proposal to post information would create an 

information collection burden. 

292 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 110 - 

 

170. The requirement for interstate natural gas pipelines to post information about nonotice service, would impose an additional information collection burden on interstate 

natural gas pipelines. The other requirement for major non-interstate pipelines to post 

scheduled volume information would impose an additional information collection burden 

on major non-interstate pipelines. Interstate and major non-interstate pipelines already 

collect this information, but do not necessarily post it. Certain non-interstate pipelines 

have asserted in comments on the Posting NOPR that costs would be quite high if 

additional equipment were needed to meet quick posting deadlines. However, given that 

this information is used in their business, the Commission still believes that the burden 

that would be imposed by this proposed requirement is largely for the collection and 

posting of this information in the required format.293 Further, certain non-interstate 

pipelines provide burden estimates based on posting for all receipt and delivery points 

and by mainline segment and based on measuring and posting actual flow information. 

These estimates are too high because, as explained in this preamble, the Commission will 

not require posting at mainline segments and does not require posting at all receipt and 

delivery points, rather it will require posting at each receipt and delivery point that has a 

293 See 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) (“The time, effort, and financial resources necessary to 

comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal 

course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records) will be 

excluded from the “burden” if the agency demonstrates that the reporting, recordkeeping, 

or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary.”). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 111 - 

design capacity greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day. Finally, the Commission has reduced 

the number of non-interstate pipelines that will be required to post by raising the delivery 

threshold used to define a major non-interstate pipeline from 10 million MMBtu per year 

to 50 million MMBtu per year in deliveries. For interstate natural gas pipelines, the 

Commission reduced the burden by not requiring the posting of actual flow information; 

instead, the Commission will require that interstate natural gas pipelines post information 

on no-notice transportation. Elsewhere in this preamble, the Commission has further 

addressed comments regarding the burden of the requirements. 

171. OMB regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection 

requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission submitted notification of this 

rule to OMB. 

Public Reporting Burden: 

The start-up and annual burden estimates for complying with this Final Rule are as 

follows:

Data 

Collection 

No. of 

Respondents 

No. of 

Daily 

Postings 

per 

Respondent

Estimated 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours per 

Respondent 

Total 

Annual 

Hours For 

All 

Respondents 

Estimated 

Start-Up 

Burden Per 

Respondent 

Part 284 

FERC-551 

 

Major NonInterstate Pipeline 

Postings 

80 2 365 29,200 40 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 112 - 

Data 

Collection 

No. of 

Respondents 

No. of 

Daily 

Postings 

per 

Respondent

Estimated 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours per 

Respondent 

Total 

Annual 

Hours For 

All 

Respondents 

Estimated 

Start-Up 

Burden Per 

Respondent 

Additional 

Interstate Natural 

Gas Pipeline 

Postings 

101 1 183 18,433 8 

Total 181 47,633 

The total annual hours for collection (including recordkeeping) for all respondents is 

estimated to be 47,633 hours. 

Information Posting Costs: The average annualized cost for each respondent is projected 

to be the following (savings in parenthesis): 

Annualized 

Capital/Startup Costs 

(10 year amortization) 

Annual Costs Annualized Costs Total

FERC-551 

Major Non-Interstate 

Pipeline Postings $142 $30,000 $30,142 

Additional Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipeline 

Postings 

$0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 

Title: FERC- 551. 

Action: Proposed Information Posting and Information Filing. 

OMB Control No: 1902-0243. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 113 - 

Respondents: Business or other for profit. 

Frequency of Responses: Daily posting requirements. 

Necessity of the Information: The daily posting of additional information by interstate 

and major non-interstate pipelines is necessary to provide information regarding the price 

and availability of natural gas to market participants, state commissions, the Commission 

and the public. The posting would contribute to market transparency by aiding the 

understanding of the volumetric/availability drivers behind price movements; it would 

provide a better picture of disruptions in natural gas flows in the case of disturbances to 

the pipeline system; and it would allow the monitoring of potentially manipulative or 

unduly discriminatory activity. 

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to natural 

gas pipelines and determined they are necessary to provide price and availability 

information regarding the sale of natural gas in interstate markets. 

VIII. Environmental Analysis

172. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 

on the human environment.294 The actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in 

 294 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations 

Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 114 - 

the Commission’s regulations for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and 

for sales, exchange, and transportation of natural gas that require no construction of 

facilities.295 Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been 

prepared in this rulemaking. 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act

173. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)296 generally requires a description 

and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA requires consideration of regulatory alternatives that 

accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant 

economic impact on such entities. The RFA does not, however, mandate any particular 

outcome in a rulemaking. At a minimum, agencies are to consider the following 

alternatives: establishment of different compliance or reporting requirements for small 

entities or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; 

clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements 

for small entities; use of performance rather than design standards; and exemption for 

certain or all small entities from coverage of the rule, in whole or in part. The proposal to 

require daily postings by interstate and non-interstate pipelines will not impact small 

 295 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5) and (a)(27). 

296 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 115 - 

entities. Natural gas pipelines are classified under NAICS code, 486210, Pipeline 

Transportation of Natural Gas. 297 A natural gas pipeline is considered a small entity for 

the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act if its average annual receipts are less than 

$6.5 million. 298 The Commission does not believe that any pipeline that would be 

required to post under the proposal in this NOPR has receipts less than $6.5 million. 

Thus, the daily posting proposal will not impact small entities. In this Final Rule, the 

Commission will reduce the number of major non-interstate pipelines that will be subject 

to the posting requirements by reducing the delivery threshold from 10 million 

MMBtu/year to 50 million MMBtu/year. Further, the Commission as explained above 

considered alternatives for obtaining and disseminating daily the information on 

scheduled volumes. 

X. Document Availability

174. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission will provide all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the 

 297 This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the pipeline 

transportation of natural gas from processing plants to local distribution systems. 2002 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Definitions, 

http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND486210.HTM. 

298 See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size 

Standards, 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf 

(effective July 31, 2006). 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 116 - 

contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business 

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington DC 20426. 

175. From FERC'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. 

176. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s website during normal 

business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (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. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

XI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

177. These regulations are effective [insert date 30 days from publication in Federal 

Register]. The Commission will determine, with the concurrence of the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule [is or is not] a 

“major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 117 - 

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

Continental shelf; Incorporation by reference; Natural gas; Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By the Commission. 

( S E A L ) 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 118 - 

 In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 284, 

Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. §§ 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7352; 43 

U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356. 

2. In § 284.1, paragraphs (d) is added to read as follows: 

§ 284.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Major non-interstate pipeline means a pipeline that: 

(1) Is not a “natural gas company” under section 1 of the Natural Gas Act; and 

(2) Delivers annually more than fifty (50) million MMBtu (million British 

thermal units) of natural gas measured in average deliveries for the previous three 

calendar years. 

3. In § 284.13, paragraph title and paragraph (d)(1) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 284.13 Reporting requirements for interstate pipelines. 

* * * * * 

(d) Capacity and flow information. (1) * * * An interstate pipeline must 

also provide information about the volumes of no-notice transportation provided pursuant 

to § 284.7(a)(4). This information must be posted at each receipt and delivery point 

before 11:30 a.m. central clock time three days after the day of gas flow. 

* * * * * 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 119 - 

4. Section 284.14 is added to read as follows: 

§ 284.14. Posting Requirements of major non-interstate pipelines. 

(a) Daily posting requirement. A major non-interstate pipeline must provide 

on a daily basis on an Internet website and in downloadable file formats equal and timely 

access to information relevant to the design capacity of each receipt or delivery point that 

has a design capacity equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day and the amount 

scheduled at each such point whenever capacity is scheduled. For each such point on its 

system, a major non-interstate pipeline must provide the following information: 

Transportation Service Provider Name, Posting Date, Posting Time, Nomination Cycle, 

Location Name, Additional Location Information if Needed to Distinguish Between 

Points, Location Purpose Description (Receipt, Delivery, or Bilateral), Design Capacity, 

Scheduled Volume, Available Capacity, and Measurement Unit (Dth, MMBtu, or MCf). 

The information in this subsection must remain posted for a period of one year. 

(b) Exemptions to daily posting requirement. The following categories of 

major non-interstate pipelines are exempt from the posting requirement of § 284.14(a): 

(1) Those that fall entirely upstream of a processing, treatment, or dehydration 

plant; 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 120 - 

(2) Those that deliver more than 95 percent of the natural gas volumes they 

flow directly to retail end-users as measured by average deliveries over the preceding 

three calendar years; and, 

(3) Storage providers.
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 121 - 

Appendix A: List of Commenters and Abbreviations. 

Commenter Abbreviation 

1. Alliance Pipeline L.P. Alliance 

2. American Gas Association AGA 

3. American Public Gas Association APGA 

4. Atmos Pipeline-Texas Atmos 

5. Bear Paw Energy L.L.C. and Oneok Field 

Services Company L.L.C. 

ONEOK Gathering 

Companies 

6. BENTEK Energy, L.L.C. Bentek 

7. Bridgeline Holdings, L.P., Chevron Midstream 

Pipeline LLC, Chevron Keystone Gas Storage, 

LLC, Sabine Pipe Line LLC, and Chandeleur 

Pipe Line Company 

Chevron Pipelines or CVX 

Pipelines 

8. Calpine Corporation Calpine 

9. Copano Energy, L.L.C. Copano Energy 

10.Cranberry Pipeline Corporation Cranberry Pipeline 

11.Crosstex Energy Services, LP Crosstex 

12.DCP Midstream, LLC DCP Midstream 

13.Dow Chemical Company Dow Chemical 

14.Dow Interstate Gas Company Dow Interstate 

15.Dow Pipeline Company Dow Pipeline 

16.EnergySouth, Inc. EnergySouth 

17.Duke Energy Corporation Duke 

18.Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. Enbridge 

19.Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Encana 

20.Enstor Operating Company, LLC Enstor 

21. EOG Resources, Inc., Pecan Pipeline 

Company, and Pecan Pipeline (North Dakota), 

Inc. 

EOG Resources 

22.Gas Processors Association Gas Processors 

23.Freeport LNG Development, L.P. Freeport 

24.Independent Petroleum Association of America IPAA 

25.Interstate Natural Gas Association of America INGAA 

26.Jefferson Island Storage & Hub, L.L.C. Jefferson 

27.Kinder Morgan Interstate Pipelines Kinder Morgan Interstate 

28.Kinder Morgan Texas Intrastate Pipeline Group Kinder Morgan Intrastate 

29.LaGrange Acquisition L.P. LaGrange 
Docket No. RM08-2-000 - 122 - 

Commenter Abbreviation 

30. Liberty Gas Storage, LLC Liberty Gas Storage 

31.Louisville Gas and Electric Company Louisville Gas and Electric 

32.Marathon Oil Company Marathon 

33.National Association of Royalty Owners Royalty Owners 

34.National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation National Fuel Distribution 

35.National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation National Fuel Supply 

36.Natural Gas Supply Association NGSA 

37.New York Public Service Commission New York PSC 

38.NISKA Gas Storage LLC NISKA 

39.NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage 

Companies 

NiSource 

40.NorthWestern Energy Corporation NorthWestern 

41.Oklahoma Corporation Commission Oklahoma Corporation 

Commission 

42.Oneok Gas Transportation, L.L.C., and Oneck 

Westex Transmission, L.L.C. 

ONEOK Gathering 

43.Pacific Gas & Electric Company PG&E 

44.Process Gas Consumers Group PGC 

45.Public Service Company of Colorado PSCo 

46.Railroad Commission of Texas Railroad Commission of 

Texas 

47.Regency Energy Partnership Regency 

48.Ryan Cole Ryan Cole 

49.SEMCO Energy Gas Company, Enstar Natural 

Gas Company, and Alaska Pipeline Company 

SEMCO 

50.Shell Offshore Inc. Shell 

51.SPECTRA Energy Transmission, LLC and 

Spectra Energy Partners, LP 

Spectra 

52.Texas Independent Producers and Royalty 

Owners 

TIPRO 

53.Texas Pipeline Association TPA 

54.Total Peaking Services, L.L.C. Total Peaking 

55.Venice Gathering System, L.L.C. Venice Gathering 

56.Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company Williston Basin 

57.Yates Petroleum Corporation and Agave 

Energy Corporation 

Yates