BEFORE THE
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Application of Laser Marcellus Gathering :
Company, LLC for Approval to Begin to Offer, :
Render, Furnish, or Supply Natural Gas : A-2010-2153371
Gathering and Transporting or Conveying :
Service by Pipeline to the Public in Certain :
Townships of Susquehanna County, :
Pennsylvania :
SCHEDULING ORDER
Second Prehearing Order
On January 19, 2010, Laser Marcellus Gathering Company LLC (Applicant) filed an Application for a certificate of public convenience to begin to offer gathering and transporting or conveying service by pipeline to the public in the Townships of Apolacon, Choconut, Forest Lake, Great Bend, Jessup, Liberty, Middletown and New Milford in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Notice of the Application was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on January 30, 2010, at 50 Pa. B. 687. Applicant submitted proof on February 19, 2010 that the Susquehanna County Independent published notice of the Application on January 27, 2010.
The following protests were filed: on February 19, 2010, Laurie and Brian Kaszuba; on February 20, 2010, Vera Scroggins; on February 26, 2010, Rebecca Roter; on March 1, 2010, ETC Northeast; on March 5, 2010, Rita Chirumbolo Ernstrom; on March 8, 2010, Silver Lake Association.
The following petitions to intervene were filed: on March 1, 2010, ETC NE Pipeline; and Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania (IOGA); on March 5, 2010, Laurel Mountain Midstream LLC; on April 2, 2010, MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources, LLC; on April 12, 2010, DTE Pipeline Company and Bluestone Pipeline Company of PA.
On April 1, 2010, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed its notice of intervention.
On March 18, 2010, Applicant filed Preliminary Objections to the protest of Laurie and Brian Kaszuba. On March 30, 2010, the Kaszuba Protest was withdrawn.
On March 19, 2010, Applicant filed Answers to the petitions to intervene of IOGA and Laurel Mountain. On March 23, 2010, Applicant filed a letter confirming that they had requested and received a 7-day extension for filing responsive pleadings.
On March 23, 2010, Applicant filed its Answer to ETC NE petition to intervene.
On March 26, 2010, Applicant filed individual Preliminary Objections to the protests of the Silver Lake Association, Vera Scroggins, Rita Chirumbolo Ernstrom, and Rebecca Roter. On April 12, 2010, Rita Chirumbolo Ernstrom withdrew her protest, thus rendering the Preliminary Objections against her protest moot.
On March 30, 2010, notice of the prehearing conference was issued, setting the prehearing conference for April 28, 2010 in Harrisburg.
On April 2, 2010, MarkWest Liberty filed a Motion for publication of an amended notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
On April 2, 2010, William C. Fisher filed a response to the preliminary objections to the Silver Lake protest, and Vera Scroggins filed a response to the preliminary objections against her protest.
Also on April 2, 2010, Applicant filed an amendment to its Application, and a letter from ETC Northeast stated that the amendment resolved its protest.
On April 21, 2010, an order denying the preliminary objections against Silver Lake Association, Vera Scroggins and Rebecca Roter was issued. On April 26, 2010, Applicant filed revised preliminary objections against Rebecca Roter.
On April 26, 2010, Michael D. Fiorentino, Esq., filed his entry of appearance on behalf of the Silver Lake Association, and the Office of Trial Staff filed a notice of intervention.[1]
Prehearing memos were filed by Applicant, ETC Northeast, PIOGA, Mr. Fischer, OTS, OCA, DTE/Bluestone, MarkWest, and Laurel Mountain Midstream.
The prehearing conference was held as scheduled. At the hearing, Superior Appalachian Pipeline, LLC, presented a petition to intervene. The following attorneys attended the prehearing conference: Daniel P. Delaney, Esq., for Applicant; Thomas J. Sniscak, Esq., for ETC Northeast; Kevin J. Moody, Esq., for PIOGA; Brian J. Clark, Esq., for Laurel Mountain Midstream; James A. Mullins, Esq., for OCA; Adeolu Bakare, Esq., for OTS; Brian J. Knipe, Esq., for MarkWest Liberty Midstream; John H. Isom, Esq., for DTE Pipeline and Bluestone Pipeline; Michael D. Fiorentino, Esq., for Silver Lake Association; Elizabeth U. Witmer, Esq., for Superior Appalachian Pipeline, Inc.; and protestants William C. Fischer and Vera Scroggins appeared pro se.
Petitions to Intervene
Petitions to intervene were filed by ETC Northeast, Laurel Mountain Midstream, MarkWest Liberty, and Superior Appalachian Pipeline, and were not opposed by Applicant.
Petitions to intervene were filed by PIOGA and DTE Pipeline and Bluestone Pipeline. Applicant specified that these were not opposed inasmuch as they were limiting their interventions to the subject matter stated in their petitions.
All six petitions for intervention were granted as unopposed.
At the prehearing conference, Superior Appalachian Pipeline, Inc., presented its petition to intervene, and Applicant was afforded additional time to respond.
Litigation Schedule
Following considerable discussion, the following litigation schedule was set:
Prehearing Conference April 28, 2010
Laser Direct Testimony May 12, 2010
Direct testimony of other parties June 9, 2010
Laser rebuttal testimony June 24, 2010
Rebuttal testimony of other parties July 6, 2010
Hearings July 14, 15 and 26, 2010
Includes oral rejoinder
Main brief August 9, 2010
Reply brief August 23, 2010
Due dates are in-hand and service of testimony, exhibits and briefs may be by electronic means on the due date if transmission occurs before 4:00 pm and hard copies follow. Oversize exhibits or photos or attachments may be served by hard copy only but must be sent by overnight mail if the submission is sent electronically on the due date.
Testimony referred to in the above schedule is written testimony to be prepared in accordance with Commission regulations:
§5.412.Written testimony.
(a)General. Use of written testimony in Commission proceedings is encouraged, especially in connection with the testimony of expert witnesses. Written direct testimony is required of expert witnesses testifying in rate cases.
(b)Use. The presiding officer may direct that expert testimony to be given upon direct examination be submitted as prepared written testimony. A reasonable period of time will be allowed to prepare written testimony.
(c)Rules regarding use. Written testimony is subject to the same rules of admissibility and cross-examination of the sponsoring witness as if it were presented orally in the usual manner.
(d)Cross-examination. Cross-examination of the witness presenting written testimony shall proceed at the hearing at which testimony is authenticated if service of the written testimony is made upon each party of record at least 20 days prior to the hearing, unless the presiding officer for good cause otherwise directs. In a rate proceeding, the presiding officer or the Commission will establish the schedule for the filing and authentication of written testimony, and for cross-examination by other parties.
(e)Form. Written testimony must normally be prepared in question and answer form, include a statement of the qualifications of the witness and be accompanied by exhibits to which it relates. A party offering prepared written testimony shall insert line numbers in the left-hand margin on each page. A party should also use a logical and sequential numbering system to identify the written testimony of individual witnesses.
(f)Service. Written testimony shall be served upon the presiding officer and parties in the proceeding in accordance with the schedule established by this chapter. At the same time the testimony is served, a certificate of service for the testimony shall be filed with the Secretary.
(g)Copies. At the hearing at which the testimony is authenticated, counsel for the witness shall provide two copies of the testimony to the court reporter.
(h)Supersession. Subsections (a)—(g) supersede 1 Pa. Code §§35.138, 35.150 and 35.166 (relating to expert witnesses; scope and conduct of examination; and prepared expert testimony).
52 Pa. Code § 5.412.
Rebuttal testimony is limited to testimony which is responsive to the direct testimony of one or more parties. Matters which should have been raised on direct may not be raised in rebuttal. Witnesses shall sponsor and authenticate written testimony at the evidentiary hearings, after which other parties may cross examine witnesses. Testimony and exhibits shall comply with the applicable rules of evidence in order to be relied upon by the presiding officer.
Please note that prepared written testimony is served upon other parties and the presiding officer consistent with the due dates in the schedule but it is NOT filed with the Commission’s Secretary. Two copies of the prepared written testimony shall be handed to the court reporter at the evidentiary hearing, and the court reporter shall deliver the testimony to the Secretary after it is admitted into the evidentiary record.
Applicant shall coordinate the order of presentation of witnesses, create a cross-examination grid and submit the two lists to the presiding officer no later than August 12, 2010.
Discovery Modifications
Applicant has asked for expedited treatment of this Application and modifications to the Commission’s discovery rules will be implemented in order to allow other parties to conduct discovery and still allow an expeditious schedule. There was no opposition to the modifications.
Issues
At the prehearing conference, the following list of issues was identified as needing establishment or development:
1. Whether applicant has satisfied requirements, including financial fitness and definition of public utility?
2. Exact authority sought by Applicant?
3. What is the nature of service territory?
4. Development of a list of items to be included in tariffs.
5. Commission jurisdiction over gathering systems, including siting.
6. Commission jurisdiction over compression plants siting, need for finding of need under municipalities planning code exemption for public utilities.
7. What is “light-handed” regulation, and where is the authority for it?
This list is intended as a guide and is not meant to be limiting. Other relevant issues may be raised in direct testimony.
Presiding Officer’s Party E-Mail Contact List
The following is the list of contacts which were compiled at the prehearing conference and checked with the parties:
Changes in addresses, either electronic or postal mailing addresses, must be reported to the presiding officer and other parties in order to ensure proper service. An updated service list is attached to this Order.
Parties are reminded that this case is a formal adversarial proceeding before the Commission, and the Commissions regulations regarding practice and procedure, appearing at 52 Pa. Code Chapters 1, 3 and 5, apply. These regulations are available at www. pacode.com.
THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the petitions to intervene filed by ETC Northeast Pipeline, Laurel Mountain Midstream LLC, and MarkWest Liberty Midstream and Resources, LLC, Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, Superior Appalachian Pipeline, Inc. and DTE Pipeline Company and Bluestone Pipeline Company of Pennsylvania are granted without opposition.
2. That the following procedural schedule is adopted:
Laser Direct Testimony May 12, 2010
Direct testimony of other parties June 9, 2010
Laser rebuttal testimony June 24, 2010
Rebuttal testimony of other parties July 6, 2010
Hearings July 14, 15 and 26, 2010
Includes oral rejoinder
Main brief August 9, 2010
Reply brief August 23, 2010
3. That the Petition of MarkWest Midstream & Resources LLC to withdraw its Motion for publication of an amended notice of the application is granted.
4. That due dates are in-hand, service of discovery requests, testimony, exhibits and briefs may be by electronic means on the due date if transmission occurs before 4:00 pm and hard copies follow, unless otherwise noted in the litigation schedule. Oversize exhibits or photos or attachments may be served by hard copy only but must be sent by overnight mail if the submission is sent electronically on the due date.
5. Any document filed by a party must be served separately upon the presiding officer. Service may be electronic on the due date at , with a hard copy to follow at: Administrative Law Judge Susan D. Colwell, Pa. PUC, P.O. Box 3265, Harrisburg PA 1715-3265.
6. Discovery served after 4:00 pm shall be deemed to be served the following business day. If a document subject to a three-day turn-around is due on a Monday, the due date shall be deemed to be Tuesday.
7. That the Commission’s regulations regarding discovery at 52 Pa. Code
§ 5.342(d) are modified for the purposes of this proceeding to provide that objections to discovery are in lieu of answers, and not in addition to answers.
8. That discovery disputes may be resolved via telephone conference with the presiding officer without need of a motion to compel, although the propounding party may choose to file a formal motion to compel.
9. That the Commission’s regulations regarding discovery at 52 Pa. Code
§ 5.342 are modified as follows:
a. Answers to written interrogatories shall be served in-hand within ten (10) calendar days of service. Interrogatories served after 12 p.m. on a Friday will be deemed served on the next business day.
b. Objections to interrogatories shall be communicated orally within three (3) calendar days of service of the interrogatories; unresolved objections shall be served to the ALJ in writing within five (5) days of service of the interrogatories.
c. Motions to dismiss objections and/or direct the answering of interrogatories shall be filed within three (3) calendar days of service of the written objections.
d. Answers to motions to dismiss objections and/or direct the answering of interrogatories shall be filed within three (3) calendar days of service of such motions.
e. Ruling over such motions shall be issued, if possible, within seven (7) calendar days of the filing of the motion.
f. Responses to requests for document production, entry for inspection, or other purposes must be served in-hand within ten (10) calendar days.
g. Request for admissions will be deemed admitted unless answered within ten (10) calendar days or objected to within five (5) calendar days of service.
10. Parties are required to attempt to resolve discovery disputes among themselves prior to seeking a resolution from the presiding officer.
11. Applicant shall coordinate the order of presentation of witnesses, create a cross-examination grid and submit the two lists to the presiding officer no later than July 12, 2010.
12. Briefs shall comply with the Commission’s regulations:
§5.501.Content and form of briefs.
(a)Briefs must contain the following:
(1)A concise statement or counter-statement of the case.
(2)Reference to the pages of the record or exhibits where the evidence relied upon by the filing party appears.