[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27008]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 1, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RS92-86-016, et al.]

 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; Notice of Request for 
Initiation of a Complaint Proceeding

October 26, 1994.
    Take notice that on January 18, 1994, Fina Natural Gas Company 
(Fina), P.O. Box 2159, Dallas, Texas 77002-6760, filed a request for 
the initiation of a complaint proceeding under Section 5 of the Natural 
Gas Act (NGA) and the consolidation of such complaint proceeding with 
the issues pending in Phase II of the consolidated hearing in Docket 
Nos. RP92-137-016 and RP93-136.
    Fina states that a December 17, 1993, order in Transcontinental Gas 
Pipe Line Corporation's (Transco) restructuring proceeding denied 
Fina's request to examine the functionalization of Transco's 
production-area facilities for jurisdictional and/or rate design 
purposes in the proceedings in Docket Nos. RP92-137-016 and RP93-136. 
Fina states that the Commission concluded that any need for 
refunctionalization of Transco's facilities was not germane to the 
unbundling of rates. The order also stated that parties dissatisfied 
with the current functionalization of Transco's facilities could file a 
complaint, but that the Commission would not delay Transco's current 
rate proceedings with a reexamination of the primary function of its 
facilities.
    On January 18, 1994, Fina requested rehearing of the order or, 
alternatively, establishment of a complaint proceeding under Section 5 
and the consolidation of the complaint proceeding with the issues in 
the pending Section 4 rate cases in Docket Nos. RP92-137-016 and RP93-
136. Fina contends that in its March 17, 1994, restructuring order, the 
Commission denied Fina's request for rehearing. However, Fina submits 
that the Commission stated the arguments and information submitted by 
Fina warrant further consideration to determine whether there is 
sufficient justification to initiate a complaint proceeding and 
deferred action on Fina's request until the Commission completed its 
review of Fina's presentation. The Commission further stated that if it 
determined that a Section 5 proceeding should be initiated, it would 
issue a notice establishing a separate docket number for such 
proceeding.
    On July 21, 1994, Fina requested expedited action on its request 
for the initiation of a complaint proceeding against Transco under NGA 
Section 5 and the consolidation of such complaint proceeding with 
issues pending in Phase II of the hearing in Transco's current rate 
proceedings in Docket Nos. RP92-137-016 and RP93-136.
    Fina maintains that it has shown that, under the modified primary 
function test, some of Transco's production-area facilities have been 
misfunctionalized as transmission. Since the recent gathering orders 
revising the Commission's gathering policy indicate that the Commission 
will continue to give principal consideration to the modified primary 
function test factors when determining the proper functionalization of 
facilities for jurisdictional and rate design purposes, Fina argues, 
the Commission should grant its request for expedited action and 
initiate a complaint proceeding to investigate the functionalization of 
Transco's production-area facilities.
    Fina asserts that, in its pleading, it has fully demonstrated the 
need to examine the functionalization of Transco's production-area 
facilities to assure all parties that Transco's rates are based on a 
proper categorization of facility costs between Transco's services. 
Fina submits that this inquiry is equally justified whether viewed as 
an exploration under NGA Section 1(b) to ensure proper 
functionalization of Transco's facilities or as an investigation under 
NGA Sections 4 or 5 to ensure that Transco's rates correctly reflect 
the actual functions performed by its production-area facilities, 
regardless of their jurisdictional functionalization.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said request for the initiation of a complaint proceeding 
should, on or before November 28, 1994, file with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 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. Answers to the complaint shall be due on or before 
November 28, 1994.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-27008 Filed 10-31-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M