After the May, 1996 filing, the members of the Coalition undertook a series of meetings with individual Commissioners, with senior FERC staff personnel and with the pipelines, as they were represented by one of the INGAA working committees. As a result of this series of meetings over a 7-month period, the Coalition decided to refine or modify its proposal and, we think, avoid some of the problems pointed out by these other parties. One of the refinements we made, for example, was to propose a requirement that pipeline tariffs include an informal complaint procedure for use by their customers. The use of this procedure was then made a prerequisite for a complaint to qualify for expedited treatment.

My point here is that the Coalition's proposal, in addition to being the supplemental complaint remedy endorsed and advocated by the great majority of pipeline customers, is a proposal that has undergone considerable scrutiny in the past 22 months. As a result of that process, substantial changes were made to overcome or alleviate legitimate concerns raised by the pipelines and the Commission. The proposal now officially before you is one that is supported by the vast majority of the natural gas industry and is clearly entitled to serious consideration.

Now let me briefly outline the Coalition proposal.

The Coalition's proposal for reforming the existing gas pipeline complaint process is intended to expedite the Commission's consideration and disposition of formal complaints. To achieve the goal of expedition, the Coalition would have the commission establish two standards applicable to formal complaints against pipelines. First, a formal complaint would be entitled to expedition if, but only if, the complaining party demonstrates that it has complied with the pipeline's informal complaint procedures and the complaining party fully describes its use of the Commission's Hotline procedure or explains why that procedure is not appropriate in the circumstances. The second standard is that the subject matter of the complaint must be within those categories determined to be suitable for expedited consideration. As shown on the diagram I have provided to you, the subject matter standards the Coalition proposes are first, complaints concerning interpretation issues, and second, complaints concerning undue discrimination, unfair practices, revisions to tariffs or service agreements (as proposed by a complaining party), untariffed operating practices or other violations of law.

As the diagram indicates, those complaints in the interpretation category would be entitled to a Commission summary judgment ruling within 90 days of the date of its filing. Likewise, the diagram illustrates four different paths to the expedited disposition of complaints dealing with the other category of subjects appropriate for expedited resolution.

Before leaving this diagram, I should mention the scenario shown at the bottom of this drawing. What this is depicting is the several procedural deadlines that the Coalition thinks should be added to Rule 206, the generic procedure applicable to complaints that do not qualify for the specific expedition schedules shown above. These deadlines are not intended to provide expedition to the resolution of these other complaints, except in those cases where summary judgment on the merits is found appropriate. On the other hand, these deadlines would provide some structure to Rule 206, which is currently lacking any deadline for the Commission's formal notice of a complaint.

Let me add, while I am talking about Rule 206, that the Coalition proposal would supplement Rule 206. Our proposal would provide an optional, alternative approach for complaining parties who seek an expedited ruling on their complaint. If and when this expedited procedure is adopted, there would be no change in the rights of a party to proceed without prejudice with a complaint under Section 206.

The Coalition's rationale for proposing as much expedition as feasible in resolving the merits of pipeline complaints is simple. In the restructured, post - Order 636 natural gas industry, where commercial activity has been subjected to extraordinary acceleration, the potential for immediate irreparable economic and operational injury to pipeline customers/shippers has been greatly magnified. For example, once a deal is lost, it is lost forever - market share loss is hard to recover. The old maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" is not just a quaint phrase, it is becoming more true every day in the increasingly rapid-paced natural gas marketing business.

It is my perception, without having seen any statistics on this point, that the Commission is seeing more complaints from pipeline customers in the post-Order 636 restructured environment. The scheduling of this symposium today is an indication that the Commission generally understands what the Coalition believes is true: the need to expedite and make more efficient the Commission's action to remedy the market-inflicted injury presented by a formal complaint is a major piece of unfinished business in the restructuring of the natural gas marketplace.

I would like to conclude with some comments responsive to some of the questions framed in the March 10 Notice.

In my explanation of the Coalition's proposal and the rationale for it, I think I have covered the first three questions found on page 3 of the Notice. As to question no.4 in that Notice, let me say this about the "uniform expedited complaint procedure" mentioned for pipeline and electric matters. Of the three energy industry sectors regulated by this Commission, the only one that is without a statutory refund remedy covering the period required to resolve the complaint is the gas pipeline segment. Therefore, the Coalition regards its need for reform of the complaint process as readily distinguishable from the needs of the other groups that Congress intended would be the beneficiaries of FERC regulation. For whatever reason, Congress has provided better economic protection to the complaining parties affected by regulated services of electric utilities and oil pipelines than it has for those affected by gas pipeline services. In this regard, the lack of a retroactive remedy under the Natural Gas Act should compel the Commission to expedite the complaint process as much as possible to mitigate the damages to the complaining party.

My other comment concerns the process adopted in the Amoco-NGPL complaint case recently completed at Docket No. RP97-232. In that case, the Commission reached its decision with the aid of an audit report, which addressed the merits of issues raised by the Amoco complaint in the light of facts found by the team of FERC personnel who performed the audit. While the Coalition has only recently (since the March 10 Notice) begun to consider and discuss what lessons are taught by this Amoco complaint case experience, one fact stands out. That is the publication of the audit report, together with the opportunity provided for interested parties to comment on its contents. The Coalition believes this way of using the audit report - as a set of findings subject to review and critique by interested parties, was an important factor in the Commission's timely disposition of the Amoco complaint. This comment about the Amoco auditing process seems responsive to the question wherein the Notice (page 3) asks what criteria could be used to decide which process is appropriate for a particular case. It seems to me that (a) the presence of a need for expedited complaint resolution and (b) the Commission's need to ascertain some objective facts to evaluate the issues raised by the complaint were the criteria present in the Amoco-NGPL case that caused it to choose the audit process as a way of facilitating an early resolution of Amoco's complaint. The Coalition would encourage a similar process where these criteria are present in the future. We are also encouraged by the Commission s recently-launched program to conduct some "preventive audits" on interstate pipelines. This ounce of prevention will surely be worth the proverbial pound of cure.

The other comment I would offer concerns the April 10, 1997 INGAA proposal. The Coalition has no objection to the use of voluntary arbitration to resolve complaints. We recognize that, where the parties agree to be bound by an arbitrator's decision, this has real benefits to all concerned. We do not believe, however, that the currently available voluntary arbitration process in any removes the need for an expedited complaint remedy. Indeed, the INGAA proposal offered nothing new and provided no meaningful expedition of a complaint as shown in the Coalition's response of May 16, 1997. Again, let me say the Coalition welcomes the Commission's review of its complaint process in this proceeding. We intend to review our proposal in the light of another year's experience and the Comments provided at this Symposium. Therefore, we plan to file written comments in this Docket that may well incorporate our new thoughts and the concerns of others as presented today.

This concludes my comments. I look forward to responding to your questions and the comments of the other participants in this conference.