"comparability of service" which will enhance open access transportation and provide the necessary operational fine-tuning to open access transportation. 2. If sections 204 and 205 of S. 570 were adopted what impact would that have on the transportation program? Commission's open access We favor the goals of the optional certificate procedures (section 204) and non-jurisdictional option (section 205) of S. 570 to expedite the construction of pipeline facilities, eliminate bottlenecks, expand mainline capacity and storage facilities, enhance open access transportation, and facilitate the further unbundling of pipeline services. However, S. 570 goes well beyond the goals of expediting construction and streamlining the federal regulatory process. interconnection The proposals incorporated in sections 203, 204 and 205 of S. 570 along with the proposals to restructure the FERC and expand the mandatory authority, result in a major restructuring of the way interstate pipelines currently operate and interact with their customers. The industry has been undergoing major changes during the last five years attempting to implement open access transportation. Imposition of the S. 570 proposals will provide the industry with another period of relatively unstable regulatory policy when what it needs most is now to realize the benefits of open access transportation. Brooklyn Union favors the Johnston bill (S. 341) noncertificate option and/or the changes proposed in the August 2, 1990 FERC rulemaking (RM 90-1) on pipeline certificates. The Johnston bill would expedite construction under its proposed noncertificate option by, for example, providing for negotiated rates and the elimination of comparative applications. These are changes which will expedite the process without leading to unnecessary uncertainties. Would you prefer the NGPA section 311 amendments in S. 341 D those in S. 570? 3. Brooklyn Union generally supports revisions to Section 311 as a means of enhancing the competitive market for gas supplies. However, as discussed below, we favor the provisions of S. 341 over S. 570. Neither of the proposed amendments adequately deal with our concerns of service degradation or possible increased rates. The proposal in S. 570 to provide a state public utility commission with a 30-day notice also does not afford us the opportunity to raise legitimate concerns regarding service degradation (our ability to provide reliable services to our customers) or increased rates. A notice and protest procedure is necessary with the following characteristics: Notice should include a complete description of The class of protesters would be limited to o The protest must be accompanied by specific claims The protest would be due in 30 days. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should be 4. What changes would you recommend be made to sections 203, 204 and 205 of S. 570? Brooklyn Union is supportive of proposals to expedite the construction of additional pipeline capacity and generally prefers the Johnston bill (S. 341). As to S. 570, it is recommended that an expedited prior notice and protest procedure where issues of service degradation and possible increased rates can be resolved in a timely manner by the FERC, be added to sections 203, 204 and 205. This procedure is detailed in my response to question 3 above. It is recommended that the new section 7(j) complaint procedures implemented by sections 204 and 205 be eliminated. These procedures allow parties requesting service after completion of construction, who are unable to reach an agreement with the pipeline, to petition the FERC to determine rates and conditions. (see detailed analysis of section 204) It is also recommended that the provisions of section 204 (c) (2), authorizing a pipeline to convert facilities and services previously certificated under 7 (c) to 7(i) certificated service, only be permitted if there is an agreement between the pipeline and all affected parties to do so. QUESTIONS OF SENATOR J. BENNETT JOHNSTON 1. To the extent necessary, please supplement your testimony with a more detailed analysis of title II of S. 570, the National Energy Strategy Act. Please address both the policy implications of title II and questions raised by the individual provisions of title II. See attached detailed analysis. 2. In particular, please address section 201 of S. 570, the socalled mandatory interconnect provisions. a. What are the policy issues raised in connection with this section? Brooklyn Union generally supports the expansion of the Commission's authority to order interstate pipeline interconnections, provided that there is adequate protection given to existing services and that legitimate pipeline concerns are taken into consideration prior to the issuance of the Commission's order to interconnect. This Section does raise several policy concerns. The provisions set forth in proposed section 7(a) (3) do not adequately protect existing pipeline service because they do not deal with the complexity of transportation services offered by |