[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16921]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 13, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-625-000, et al.]

 

El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate 
Filings

July 6, 1994.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. El Paso Natural Gas Company

Docket No. CP94-625-000

    Take notice that on June 23, 1994, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso), P.O. Box 1492, El Paso, Texas 79978, filed a request with the 
Commission in Docket No. CP94-625-000 pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 
for authorization to construct and operate a delivery point to provide 
firm transportation and delivery of natural gas to Southwest Gas 
Corporation (Southwest) under El Paso's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket Nos. CP82-435-000 and CP88-433-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the 
NGA, all as more fully set forth in the request which is open to the 
public for inspection.
    El Paso proposes to construct and operate a delivery point on the 
20'' O.D. Maricopa County Line of its North System Mainline to provide 
firm transportation of natural gas to Southwest. El Paso states that 
Southwest would then deliver the gas to the residential and commercial 
customers located in the Garden Lakes area of Maricopa County, Arizona. 
El Paso estimates the cost of the proposed delivery point would be 
$93,400 and states that Southwest has agreed to reimburse El Paso for 
the expenses.
    El Paso reports that it has sufficient capacity to accomplish the 
proposed deliveries without detriment to its other existing customers.
    Comment date: August 22, 1994, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

2. Newfield Exploration Company

Docket No. CP94-636-000

    Take notice that on June 30, 1994, Newfield Exploration Company 
(Newfield), 363 N. Sam Houston Pkwy E., Suite 2020, Houston, Texas 
77060, filed a petition for declaratory order in Docket No. CP94-636-
000 requesting that the Commission declare that, following Newfield's 
purchase of certain offshore facilities from Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern), that those facilities are gathering 
facilities exempt from the Commission's Regulations pursuant to Section 
1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully set forth in the 
petition which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Newfield states that the facilities consist of one currently-
certificated supply line owned by Texas Eastern along with an 
associated metering facility. It is indicated that the supply line 
consists of a 4.8 mile, 8-inch lateral that connects Newfield's oil and 
gas production platform in the Eugene Island Block 182-A area to the 
facilities of Sea Robin Pipeline Company (Sea Robin) in Eugene Island 
Block 197 in offshore Louisiana. It is indicated that on June 16, 1993, 
Texas Eastern ceased purchasing the Newfield production gathered by the 
facilities to be purchased, but did continue transporting Newfield's 
production through the facilities for redelivery to the transmission 
facilities of Sea Robin.
    Newfield asserts that the primary function of the facilities to be 
acquired is gathering as set forth in Farmland Industries, Inc., 23 
FERC  61,023 (1983), as later modified by Amerada Hess Corp., et al, 
52 FERC  61,268 (1990), (Amerada Hess). It is indicated that under 
that test the Commission applies six criteria to determine the 
jurisdictional status of a facility: (1) the diameter and length of a 
facility; (2) the extension of facilities beyond a central point in the 
field; (3) the geographic configuration of the system; (4) the location 
of compressors and processing plants; (5) the location of wells along 
all or part of the facility; and (6) the operating pressure of the 
line. In Amerada Hess, the Commission indicated that it would consider 
other factors, in addition to the Farmland criteria, especially for 
offshore facilities, including the changing technical and geographic 
nature of exploration and production, the purpose, location and 
operation of the facility, the general business activity of the 
facility, and whether the jurisdictional determination is consistent 
with the objectives of the Natural Gas Act and the Natural Gas Policy 
Act of 1978.
    Newfield asserts that there can be doubt that the primary function 
of the facilities is gathering. It is stated that the facilities 
connect directly to producing wells and were constructed to gather gas 
produced from those wells for delivery into transmission facilities 
currently owned by Sea Robin. Newfield also states that the facilities 
are short in length and small in diameter, do not extend beyond the 
production area, and are located upstream of processing or dehydration 
facilities and therefore are gathering facilities. Newfield also points 
out that an application of the non-physical factors set out in Amerada 
Hess demonstrates that the facilities should be classified as gathering 
facilities. It is stated that the sole purpose of the facilities is to 
gather gas produced by Newfield as the sole working interest owner in 
the wells for delivery to transmission facilities owned by Sea Robin. 
Newfield also states that its general business activity is the 
exploration and production of natural gas.
    Newfield requests that the petition be considered contemporaneously 
with Texas Eastern's application in Docket No. CP94-567-000 to abandon 
the facilities to be sold to Newfield.
    Comment date: July 27, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.

3. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company

Docket No. CP94-640-000

    Take notice that on July 1, 1994, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West 
Virginia 25314-1599, filed in Docket No. CP94-640-000, an abbreviated 
application pursuant to Sections 7(b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act 
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the 
construction and operation of certain replacement natural gas 
facilities and an order granting permission and approval to abandon the 
facilities being replaced, all as more fully set forth in the 
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Specifically, Columbia Gulf proposes to construct and operate 
approximately 1.2 miles of 30-inch pipeline crossing the Mississippi 
River replacing approximately 1.2 miles of duel 24-inch crossing which 
ruptured in 1993 in East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. Columbia Gulf 
states that this river crossing is part of Columbia Gulf's Mainline 200 
30-inch pipeline. Columbia Gulf further states that the Mainline 200 
operates as part of a looped system in conjunction with Columbia Gulf's 
Mainline 100 30-inch and Mainline 300 36-inch extending from southern 
Louisiana to northeastern Kentucky. Columbia Gulf states that the 
proposed crossing, when operated as part of Columbia Gulf's looped 
pipeline system, will have equivalent designed delivery capacity to 
that of the facilities being replaced.
    Columbia Gulf states that the estimated cost of the proposed 
construction is $5,747,000. Columbia Gulf states that it will finance 
the construction with funds generated from internal sources.
    Columbia Gulf requests that this application be processed pursuant 
to section 385.802 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 
and hereby waives oral hearing and the opportunity for filing 
exceptions to the decision of the Commission and requests the 
Commission to omit the intermediate decision procedure.
    Comment date: July 27, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.

4. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

Docket No. CP94-641-000

    Take notice that on July 1, 1994, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West 
Virginia 25314, filed in Docket No. CP94-641-000 an application 
pursuant to Sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for 
authorization to construct and operate certain replacement natural gas 
facilities and for authorization to abandon the facilities being 
replaced, all as more fully set forth in the application on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Columbia proposes to construct and operate approximately 4.9 miles 
of 12-inch transmission pipeline replacing approximately 4.9 miles of 
deteriorating and obsolete 12-inch pipeline (Line A-5) in seven 
sections in Broome and Tioga Counties, New York.
    Columbia states that it is not requesting authorization for any new 
or additional service. Columbia also states that the sections of 
pipeline to be constructed will have equivalent designed delivery 
capacity and that the facilities being replaced have become obsolete 
and/or physically deteriorated to the extent that the replacement is 
deemed advisable. The estimated cost of the proposed construction is 
$5,061,000 and the estimated net debit to retirement associated with 
the abandonment is $655,000.
    Comment date: July 26, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F 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 pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 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. 94-16921 Filed 7-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P