Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 75, April 21, 2009, Pages 18115-18284 Page: 18,129
vi, 18283, iii p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 75/Tuesday, April 21, 2009/Rules and Regulations
Figure 1
(C City Gate
S00 5,000 dth/day
AMA Manager's City Gate
Obligation to CustomerProduction
Area0 O0
9. The Marketer Petitioners state it is
unclear in this situation if the asset
manager's delivery obligation at the
releasing shipper's city gate is equal to
(1) the releasing shipper's 5,000 Dth
contract demand on Pipeline C, or (2)
the releasing shipper's 6,000 Dth total of
the releasing shipper's 1,000 Dth
contract demand on Pipeline A and
5,000 Dth contract demand on Pipeline
B. Marketer Petitioners also question
whether, if the delivery obligation is
only 5,000 Dth at the city gate, the asset
manager nevertheless has a 6,000 Dth
delivery obligation at Point Y. Marketer
Petitioners state that, without certainty
as to the Commission's view of the
location and amount of the required
delivery obligation, it is unclear if all of
the transportation and storage capacity
is eligible for inclusion in an AMA.
10. Marketer Petitioners thus request
clarification that the ruling that an asset
manager's delivery/purchase obligation
must apply to the full contract demand
under each capacity release in a
transportation chain is not intended to
alter that asset manager's obligation at a
particular point, or in other words, that
it does not add additional delivery
points to an AMA. Specifically, in the
example described above, they request
clarification that, while the asset
manager may have a delivery obligation
associated with the releases on
Pipelines A, B, and C, of 1,000 Dth/day,
5,000 Dth/day, and 5,000 Dth per day,
respectively, that would not alter the
asset manager's contractual 5,000 Dth/
day delivery obligation to the releasingshipper at its city gate. They claim that
such a clarification would affirm the
Commission's holding that it does not
intend the delivery/purchase obligation
under an AMA to be cumulative of the
total contract demands associated with
the capacity in a released chain and
make clear that the Commission did not
intend to allow AMA customers to use
the Commission's rulings to enlarge
their delivery/purchase entitlements at a
particular receipt or delivery point
under an AMA.
11. The Marketer Petitioners note that
any concern that the Commission may
have about "unneeded" capacity being
included in an AMA could be addressed
by the Commission clarifying that when
an AMA encompasses capacity released
on more than one pipeline, the posting
should indicate that the AMA also
involves capacity on other pipeline(s)
and should be posted by all the
pipelines involved. They assert that
such a posting requirement would
illuminate the totality of the release
capacity to be included in the AMA.
Commission Determination
12. The Commission grants
clarification in part and denies
clarification in part. As we stated in
Order No. 712-A, the asset manager's
delivery/purchase obligation must apply
to the full contract demand under each
capacity release in the transportation
chain.14 In other words, each release to
an asset manager is a separate capacity
14 Order No. 712-A at P 87.release that must have its own delivery/
purchase obligation in order to qualify
as an AMA. As we also noted in Order
No. 712-A, in the situation where there
is a capacity chain on several pipelines,
the delivery purchase obligation need
not be cumulative to the extent that gas
delivered from the upstream pipeline to
the downstream pipeline can be
transported using the released capacity
on the downstream pipeline.
13. The Commission grants
clarification that the asset manager's
delivery obligation at the releasing
shipper's city gate need only be up to
the contract demand of the released
capacity on the downstream pipeline
that interconnects directly with the
releasing shipper's city gate. The fact
the releasing shipper may have also
released to the asset manager capacity
on an upstream pipeline or pipelines
with total contract demand exceeding
the released capacity on the
downstream pipeline does not increase
the asset manager's required delivery
obligation at the releasing shipper's city
gate on the downstream pipeline. Thus,
in the example set forth in Figure 1, the
asset manager's delivery obligation at
the releasing shipper's city gate would
be equal to the 5,000 Dth/day released
capacity on Pipeline C, despite the fact
the released capacity on Pipelines A and
B totals 6,000 Dth/day.
14. While a releasing shipper may
release capacity to an asset manager on
an upstream pipeline(s) that exceeds the
released downstream capacity, the asset
manager must have a delivery obligation18129
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 75, April 21, 2009, Pages 18115-18284, periodical, April 21, 2009; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc132937/m1/21/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.