F ILE D BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAMA OCT 012014 IN RE: INQUIRY OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION TO EXAMINE PIPELINE SAFETY, PREVENTION OF EXCAVATION DAMAGE, AND PROCESSES RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLAINTS CAUSE NO. TD 201400031 COURT CLERK'S OFFICE - CKC CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA INITIAL COMMENTS OF OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS COMPANY Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, a division of ONE Gas, Inc. ("Oklahoma Natural" or the "Company", respectively submits these Initial Comments to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission ("the Commission", in response to the Notice of Inquiry ("NOr' filed September 9, 2014 pursuant to House Bill 2533 to examine pipeline safety and enforcement procedures of the Commission in relation to the provisions of the Oklahoma Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act (the "Act". Oklahoma Natural appreciates the opportunity to comment on the significant issue of pipeline safety. Oklahoma Natural also appreciates the time and effort that the Commission Staff has put into this NOI, as well as, the consideration given to the comments and concerns identified by all the parties during the collaborative process. Oklahoma Natural's initial comments are as follows: Implementation of a Complaint Process Question A (1: Is the current Commission judicial process sufficient to address complaints regarding violations of the Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act and the prevention of excavation damage? If not, what adjustments, changes or additions are recommended to the judicial complaint process? No. The Commission now has jurisdiction over "excavators" as defined by the Act. Thus, the Commission's authority reaches beyond the traditional owners and operators of pipelines and its enforcement process should be directed to this broader group as well. All violators of the Act, regulated or unregulated by the Commission otherwise,
should be subject to the same investigation and enforcement process equally. Additionally, the judicial process should allow for third party complaints against "excavators' Question A (2: What rule or rule changes would be necessary to facilitate modifications to the current Commission judicial complaint process? The Commission should implement an entirely new judicial process that applies specifically to its enforcement of the Act. Question A (3: Should the implementation of a complaint process include good-cause criteria in initial filings to avoid the filing of frivolous complaints? Yes. Any person or entity directly impacted by an alleged violation of the Act should have the ability to submit a written complaint. Written complaints may be submitted to a Damage Review Committee. The Damage Review Committee may be comprised of members chosen from stakeholder groups. The person or entity submitting the written complaint should include the complaint's name, time and location of the incident, and facts based upon personal knowledge. The Commission should initially review the written complaint and then forward to the Damage Review Committee. The Damage Review Committee should examine the facts and determine whether there is reasonable cause that the charges are true. The Damage Review Committee should then make a recommendation to proceed with enforcement action to the Commission subject to due process. Question A (4: What should be the role of the Commission pipeline safety division in the implementation, processing, investigation or other activity related to a complaint? Page 2 of 5
The pipeline safety division may file complaints on its own behalf. Additionally, since the Damage Review Committee would not have any employees, the pipeline safety division could serve as its investigator as well. Question A (5: Should the Commission implement a new subchapter in its rules providing specifically for enforcement of violations of the Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act? Yes. The Commission should implement an entirely new judicial process that applies specifically to its enforcement of the Act. Question A (6: If a new subchapter is included, what procedures should be included? Please see above comments regarding the submission of non-frivolous complaints, the Damage Review Committee, and due process. Adequacy of Current Enforcement Powers Question B (1: What is needed to address adequate enforcement authority in Oklahoma to encourage and ensure compliance by parties subject to the Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act? The Commission needs specific legislative authorization to impose fines and penalties for violations of the Act. These fines and penalties should be equally available against all violators of the Act whether or not regulated otherwise by the Commission. Question B (2: The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration's annual monitoring audits of the Commission over the past years continue to state that civil penalties should be Page 3 of 6
used as an enforcement tool. Should the Commission incorporate civil penalties, as well as other possible performance incentives, into procedures for enforcing violations of the Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act? Yes. As previously stated, the Commission needs specific legislative authorization to impose fines and penalties for violations of the Act. These fines and penalties should be equally available against all violators of the Act whether or not regulated otherwise by the Commission. Question B (3: Should Commission enforcement authority over violations of the Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act extend to the assessment of training and/or fines based on circumstances and severity of violations? Yes. The Commission should utilize a variety of enforcement measures tailored to the specific person or entity and circumstances surrounding the violation(s. Question B (4: What rules or rule changes would be necessary to facilitate modifications of the current Commission enforcement powers? Please see above comments regarding the need for specific legislative authorization to equally impose fines and penalties against all violators of the Act. CONCLUSION Oklahoma Natural appreciates the efforts of the Commission in regard to this NOI and is supportive of the Commission's efforts in promoting pipeline safety. Page 4 of 5
Respectfully Submitted, Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, a division of ONE Gas, Inc. By: iustth R. Fredr1èt(OBA#19O95 Managing Attorney 401 North Harvey Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102-3418 dustin.fredrick@onegas.com Page 5 of 5