Customer Support: 800-526-4902
 
Home > Legal Library > Article




Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected


Commission Accepts Iroquois’ Allocation of Secondary Firm Capacity by Price




by:
Kevin C. Fitzgerald
Peter S. Glaser
Troutman Sanders LLP - Washington Office

Kevin C. Greene
Troutman Sanders LLP - Atlanta Office

Clifford S. Sikora
Troutman Sanders LLP - Washington Office

Lara L. Skidmore
Troutman Sanders LLP - Portland Office

 
June 22, 2012

Previously published on June 19, 2012

On June 14, 2012 the Commission accepted the tariff filing of Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (“Iroquois”) specifying the priority rules that should apply to Iroquois’ transportation and other services for initial scheduling purposes and in the event of a constraint at either a receipt or a delivery point or along the transportation path. Previously, Iroquois’ priority scheme only governed the allocation of mainline transportation path capacity. Subject to a compliance filing from Iroquois, the proposed tariff records will become effective on July 6, 2012.

Iroquois initially filed its proposed tariff records on January 6, 2012. On February 3, 2012, the Commission accepted and suspended Iroquois’ proposed tariff revisions and, in light of other recent orders that addressed the issue but were pending rehearing, invited parties to submit briefs addressing whether the Commission should allow allocation of secondary firm capacity based on price . In its brief, Iroquois defended its historical and previously approved methodology to base secondary transaction allocation on the highest percentage of the applicable maximum rate, and also confirmed that, when a capacity release is involved, Iroquois will allocate the released capacity based on the applicable rate of the releasing shipper and not the rate paid by the replacement shipper.

In the order accepting Iroquois’ filing, the Commission reaffirmed its policy to allow pipelines “to allocate out of path secondary firm capacity based upon either (1) percentage of maximum rate or (2) absolute price subject to the condition that all maximum rate shippers are scheduled before any secondary service is scheduled for non-maximum rate shippers.” As such, the Commission found Iroquois’ allocation of secondary firm capacity by price to be just and reasonable and did not require any modification of that allocation under Natural Gas Act, section 5. The Commission also accepted certain clarifications proposed by Iroquois to address issues raised by commenters.



 

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.
 

View More Library Documents By...

 
Author
 
Peter S. Glaser
Kevin C. Greene
Clifford S. Sikora
Lara L. Skidmore
 
Troutman Sanders LLP Overview


 

Practice Area Resource Centers
Visit our Practice Area Resource Centers to view practice area specific content compiled from a variety of legal sources. Find related articles, podcasts, industry leader insights and much more. We currently offer the following Practice Areas:Litigation;Intellectual Property;Real Estate;Corporate Law;Criminal Law;Bankruptcy;Immigration;Business Law;Insurance;Taxation;Labor & Employment;Commercial Law;Medical Malpractice;Trusts & Estates;Securities;International Law ;Health Care;Environmental Law;Construction Law;Workers' Compensation