[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3224]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 11, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-190-000, et al.]

 

Mobile Bay Pipeline Co., et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings

January 31, 1994.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Mobile Bay Pipeline Co.

[Docket No. CP94-190-000]

    Take notice that on January 19, 1994, Mobile Bay Pipeline Company 
(Mobile Bay), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed in Docket 
No. CP94-190-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.211) for authorization to construct and operate pipeline and 
measuring facilities for deliveries to Mobile Gas Service Company 
(MGSC) in Mobile County, Alabama, under Mobile Bay's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP91-3217-000 pursuant to section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Mobile Bay proposes to install approximately 100 feet of 6-inch 
pipeline with appurtenant metering and regulating facilities in order 
to make deliveries of gas transported for MGSC. It is stated that 
Mobile Bay will transport up to 40,000 MMBtu equivalent of gas per day 
on an interruptible basis for MGSC under Mobile Bay's Part 284 blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP88-394-000. It is asserted that the 
volumes delivered through the proposed facilities will be within 
currently certificated levels. It is further asserted that Mobile Bay 
has sufficient capacity to make the deliveries without detriment or 
disadvantage to its other existing customers. It is estimated that the 
cost of installing the facilities will be $162,000, and it is stated 
that MGSC will reimburse Mobile Bay for such cost.
    Comment date: March 17, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
G at the end of this notice.

2. California Public Utilities Commission

[Docket No. CP94-198-000]

    Take notice that on January 24, 1994, the Public Utilities 
Commission for the State of California (California PUC), 505 Van Ness 
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 filed a petition for a 
declaratory order under Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207). The California PUC is requesting that 
the Commission issue an order declaring that:
    1. The sale of natural gas imported from Canada by Pacific 
Interstate Transmission Company (PITCO) to Southern California Gas 
Company (SoCalGas) is a ``First Sale'' under section 3(b) of the 
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and section 2(21) of the Natural Gas Policy Act 
(NGPA).
    2. PITCO's sale of the imported volumes to SoCalGas was 
deregulated, as of January 1, 1993, under the Natural Gas Decontrol Act 
of 1989.
    3. PITCO is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
    4. PITCO's certificate of public convenience and necessity issued 
by the Commission under section 7(c) of the NGA is revoked.
    The California PUC's reasons for its request are more fully set 
forth in its petition which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    The Commission certificated PITCO in 1980 under its authority under 
section 7 of the NGA and found that the certification was ``necessary 
and related to'' the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS) 
within the meaning of section 9 of the Alaska Natural Gas 
Transportation Act (ANGTA).
    Under that certificate, PITCO sells up to 300,000 Mcf per day of 
natural gas to its affiliate SoCalGas. SoCalGas is a local distribution 
company/Hinshaw pipeline which is regulated by the California PUC. 
PITCO purchases the natural gas sold to SoCalGas from Northwest Alaskan 
Pipeline Company (Northwest Alaskan) which imports the volumes from the 
Canadian exporter, Pan Alberta Gas Ltd. (Pan Alberta). PITCO pays 
Northwest Alaskan a demand charge which includes Northwest Alaskan's 
administrative costs and the passthrough of demand charges for 
transportation of the natural gas in Canada. The rate schedule under 
which Northwest Alaskan sells the natural gas to PITCO, (Rate Schedule 
X-4) is the subject of an ongoing proceeding in Docket No. RP94-52-000 
which is not consolidated with this proceeding.
    The volumes sold to PITCO are shipped on what was designated the 
Western Delivery System (WDS) of the ``prebuild facilities'' of the 
ANGTS. The WDS was an incremental expansion of the interstate pipeline 
facilities of Pacific Gas Transmission Company (PGT), Northwest 
Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) and El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso). PITCO has an ownership interest in the incremental facilities 
built by Northwest, and pays PGT, Northwest and El Paso for 
transportation services. PITCO's interstate pipeline cost of service 
tariff on file with the Commission aggregates all the natural gas 
commodity, transportation and administration charges which are passed 
through to SoCalGas.
    The California PUC now contends the following :
    I. Section 3(b) of the NGA deregulates the sale of natural gas 
imported from Canada.
    II. Northwest Alaskan's initial sale to PITCO does not eliminate 
the ``First Sale'' status that attaches to the volumes sold by PITCO to 
SoCalGas.
    III. PITCO's sale to SoCalGas is a ``First Sale'' under section 
3(b) of the NGA or Section 2(21) of the NGPA.
    (a) A ``First Sale'' under section 3(b) of the NGA does not require 
qualification as a ``First Sale'' under section 2(21) of the NGPA.
    (b) PITCO's sale nonetheless would qualify as a ``First Sale'' 
under the NGPA alone.
    IV. Application of ``First sale'' status under section 3(b) of the 
NGA is not precluded by ANGTA.
    (a) Reliance on section 9 of ANGTA is outdated.
    (b) The Commission has recognized the incompatibility of reliance 
on section 9 of ANGTA and compliance with Section 3(b) of the NGA.
    (c) Congress Recognized ANGTA was no longer viable legislation at 
the same time it deregulated the sale of natural gas imported from 
Canada.
    (d) An alternate to the ANGTA has been approved by the Department 
of Energy.
    Thus the California PUC seeks the declaratory order described 
above.
    Comment date: February 22, 1994, in accordance with the first 
paragraph of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

3. Arkla Energy Resources Company

[Docket No. CP94-199-000]

    Take notice that on January 25, 1994, Arkla Energy Resources 
Company (Arkla), P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana 71151, filed in 
Docket No. CP94-199-000 a request pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) for 
authorization to abandon 23 rural taps and certificate one existing 
delivery tap, under Arkla's blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. 
CP82-384-000 and CP82-384-001 pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas 
Act, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Arkla states that it proposes to abandon by transfer to Arkansas 
Louisiana Gas Company (ALG), 23 1-inch rural delivery taps on gathering 
lines previously sold to third-party gathering companies located in 
various Parishes and Counties in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas.
    Arkla states further that it also proposes to certificate an 
existing 1-inch interconnect with Centennial Natural Gas (Centennial), 
as an alternate point through which ALG can secure gas supply to be 
transported to its rural customers.
    Comment date: March 17, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
G at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

    F. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before the comment date, 
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the 
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be 
considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but 
will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a 
party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in 
accordance with the Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be 
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on 
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time 
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter 
finds that a grant of the certificate and/or permission and approval 
for the proposed abandonment are required by the public convenience and 
necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if 
the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is 
required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for applicant to appear or be represented at the 
hearing.
    G. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursusant to 
Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion 
to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-3224 Filed 2-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P