There is almost uniform agreement within the natural gas industry that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should continue its existing policy on selective discounting, which allows interstate gas pipelines to provide customer discounts to compete with both alternative fuel providers and other gas pipelines.

In comments filed with the Commission on Wednesday, interstate gas pipelines, some local distribution companies (LDCs), independent and major gas producers, and large industrial gas consumers called on FERC not to change its current discounting approach. But the American Public Gas Association (APGA), which represents municipal gas utilities, stood apart from the majority, and asked the agency to prohibit discount adjustments.

“It is time for the Commission squarely to face the facts. The supposed beneficiaries of selective discounting, the captive shippers [such as APGA members], are not benefited on a national basis because the discounting, which largely stems from gas-on-gas competition, does not increase throughput…If discounting provided the promised benefits, captive shippers would be its staunchest supporters; the fact that captive shippers have over the years been the harshest critics of selective discounting should tell the Commission all that it needs to know about this misguided policy,” the APGA told FERC [RM05-02, RM97-7].

The APGA said it believes that if the Commission “eliminates discount adjustments except in those few instances where interstate pipeline throughput would be really affected (such as to compete with another fuel or in competition with intrastate pipelines), pipelines would have a strong incentive to get rid of the two-tier rate structure now in place — high rates for captive customers and discounted rates for everyone else — which would make the need for any discounts rare indeed because the base rates would be reduced to reflect costs.”

At a minimum, FERC should prohibit pipeline rate adjustments where the discounting pipeline has not met the burden of proving that the discount was needed to enhance overall gas throughput in the interstate pipeline industry and would provide benefits to captive customers, the municipal gas group said.

But Nicor Inc. implored the Commission to keep its discount policy as is. “Nicor fully supports the Commission’s proactive approach in examining important issues affecting the natural gas industry. The use of generic rulemakings is an effective means to correct industry-wide regulatory problems and inefficiencies. In this case, however, there is simply no significant evidence of a systemic problem resulting from the Commission’s current selective discounting policy,” the Naperville, IL-based LDC said.

Specifically, it noted that a “move to generically prohibit discount adjustments for gas-on-gas competition may well lead to a host of unanticipated negative consequences in the market and would represent a giant step back in the Commission’s efforts to create a competitive natural gas market.”

The APGA’s and Nicor’s comments are in response to FERC’s November 2004 notice of inquiry (NOI) in which the agency asked whether it should change its policy on selective discounting, especially with respect to discounts that are given to enhance competition between natural gas pipelines (gas-on-gas competition).

“A policy that either bars gas-on-gas competition outright, or discourages it by disallowing rate case adjustments to reflect lower revenue from discounted volumes, would not be a minor ‘tweak’ to the competitive market for pipeline capacity that the Commission has fostered,” but rather it “could unravel the new competitive framework,” and would have a “number of predictable, adverse effects” on the gas market, said the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), which represents gas interstate pipelines.

Reduced discounting “will undermine the hub and market-area competition that has developed, where basis differentials set the intrinsic transportation prices and make them transparent;” would “inhibit longer term contracting, and promote increased reliance on interruptible service;” obscure price signals and make planning for capacity expansion more speculative; and undermine competition in the market for released capacity and place interstate pipes at an even greater competitive disadvantage with intrastate pipelines than they already face, among other things, the pipe group noted.

INGAA and other groups also took issue with comments from FERC’s Office of Administrative Litigation, which “seemingly advocates discouraging pipeline discounts as a means of encouraging conservation and dampening demand for natural gas.”

The Process Gas Consumers Group and American Forest & Paper Association (industrial customers) expressed their support as well for the continuation of FERC’s discount policies, including discounts given for gas-on-gas competition. “Industrials have been the beneficiaries of selective discounting both as recipients of selective discounts and as customers on pipelines that have selectively discounted,” they said.

“Restricting discounts and discount adjustments,” as some have called for, “is not the answer because it would deny to captive customers any benefit from discounting just because some captive customers may not be receiving all of the benefits from discounting. Instead, the Commission needs to be more vigilant in its oversight of pipeline rates…Only by serious review of pipeline rates can the Commission be assured that the general economic theory that selective discounting accrues to the benefit of captive customers is realized,” industrials noted.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents independent producers, said it agreed with FERC Commissioner Nora M. Brownell, who, in a concurring statement that accompanied the NOI, expressed concern “that we are again creating market uncertainty with the specter of regulatory intervention, on a generic basis, in a discounting program that works well, promotes competition, provides regulatory safeguards and ultimately benefits gas consumers.”

©Copyright 2005Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.