[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28202]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 16, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-46-000, et al.]

 

Big Sandy Gas Co., et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings

November 7, 1994
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Big Sandy Gas Co.

[Docket No. CP95-46-000]

    Take notice that on October 31, 1994, Big Sandy Gas Company (Big 
Sandy), 15375 Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas 77079, filed a petition 
for declaratory order in Docket No. CP95-46-000, requesting that the 
Commission declare that Big Sandy's proposed acquisition, ownership, 
and operation of certain natural gas gathering systems and other 
facilities currently owned by CNG Transmission (CNGT) would not subject 
Big Sandy or any portion of its facilities or services to the 
jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully set 
forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Big Sandy seeks a declaratory order finding that the facilities 
Cabot wishes to acquire from CNGT will be gathering facilities exempt 
from the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1(b) of the NGA. 
CNGT filed on October 21, 1994 in Docket No. CP95-32-000, a proposal to 
abandon these facilities located in Boone, Kanawha, and Raleigh 
Counties, West Virginia. While Cabot is the party having agreed to 
purchase these assets from CNGT, the parties anticipate that if this 
petition is granted, the pipeline and compressor facilities will 
actually be conveyed to Cabot's subsidiary Big Sandy, and the reserves 
and wells will be conveyed to Cabot.
    The Commission, in Docket Nos. CP93-198-000 and CP93-200-000, 
issued an order on July 21, 1994, (68 FERC 61,194, currently pending 
rehearing) preliminarily approving CNGT's application to abandon 
certain other gathering facilities Big Sandy proposes to acquire from 
CNGT. In that same order, the Commission declared that upon their 
acquisition by Big Sandy, the gathering facilities would be exempt from 
the Commission's jurisdiction under the NGA (``Big Sandy I'').
    Big Sandy says that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cabot Oil & 
Gas Corporation (Cabot) and that Big Sandy owns no jurisdictional 
facilities.
    Big Sandy argues that the facilities to be transferred to Big Sandy 
meet the physical and non-physical criteria for determining gathering 
as set forth in Farmland Industries, Inc., 23 FERC 61,063 (1983), as 
modified by subsequent Commission orders. Big Sandy states that the 
diameters and lengths of the facilities to be acquired are consistent 
with the conclusion that the facilities are primarily gathering 
facilities. Most of the lines are less than 1 mile in length. More than 
three-fourths of the pipe to be acquired are 12 inches or less in 
diameter. Most is six inches or less in diameter. There are no 
processing plants on or connected to the facilities. There is one 
compressor station, Whitesville, that functions as a field compressor. 
The wellhead pressure feeding into the Whitesville System is very low, 
operating at approximately 50 pounds per square inch-gauge. The 
Whitesville Compressor Station is at the terminus of a portion of the 
facilities to be acquired. It is in the middle of another CNGT 
production area and is connected to CNGT's 12'' TL-263 line which, Big 
Sandy argues, likely would also be found to be gathering. Big Sandy 
says that when considered in the context of the entire area in which 
they are located, the facilities are in the central portion of a 
producing region surrounded by and connected to wells and other 
gathering lines. Big Sandy states that the system is akin to a ``spider 
web'' and that the facilities to be acquired do not even comprise the 
whole spider web. Only a part of CNGT's facilities in this area are 
being acquired by Big Sandy.
    With respect to non-physical criteria, Big Sandy notes that it 
operates exclusively in West Virginia, and when it acquires the Big 
Sandy I facilities that are currently pending rehearing, it will own 
exclusively gathering facilities. Big Sandy argues that in Koch 
Hydrocarbon Co., 56 FERC 61,374, 62,432 (1991), and Tom Brown, Inc., 57 
FERC 61,103, 61,400 (1990), the Commission declared both facilities in 
question to be gathering facilities, noting that Koch previously had 
limited its service in the area to gathering, and that Brown had 
limited its activities in the area to exploration and production. 
Further, Big Sandy states that the Commission found as well that Brown 
neither owned nor provided any jurisdictional service nor owned any 
jurisdictional facilities.
    Big Sandy has agreed in writing to provide non-jurisdictional 
gathering services on an open-access basis for all of CNGT's existing 
customers at rates no higher than those currently being charged by 
CNGT. Big Sandy says that it intends to operate the facilities to be 
acquired in Big Sandy I in conjunction with the facilities that are the 
subject of the instant petition. As a result, Big Sandy states that 
shippers shall only pay a single rate for gathering services regardless 
of the distance and facilities over which the gas must flow. Big Sandy 
says that those entities now relying upon service will be assured of 
continuing to receive such service by execution of a gathering 
agreement neither materially different from nor more expensive than 
they currently receive from CNGT. As for service to Hope Gas, Inc., 
(Hope) an affiliate distribution company with sales meters on the 
facilities to be acquired, Big Sandy states that service will be 
continued through a gas sales contract between a Big Sandy affiliate 
and Hope.
    Comment date: November 28, 1994, in accordance with the first 
paragraph of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

2. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.

[Docket No. CP95-47-000]

    Take notice that on November 2, 1994, Williston Basin Interstate 
Company (Williston Basin), 200 North Third Street, Suite 300, Bismarck, 
North Dakota 58501, filed a prior notice request with the Commission in 
Docket No. CP95-47-000 pursuant to Section 157.211(a)(1) of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for 
authorization to deliver natural gas to Montana-Dakota Utilities 
Company (Montana-Dakota) under the blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP82-487-000, all as more fully set forth in the request on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Williston Basin proposes to transport up to 50 Mcf per day of 
natural gas to Montana-Dakota, a local distribution company, for 
ultimate use by the residents of the Trestle Valley Heights Subdivision 
(Trestle alley), southwest of Minot, North Dakota. Williston Basin 
would provide natural gas transportation deliveries to Montana-Dakota 
under Rate Schedules FT-1 and/or IT-1 of Williston Basin's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1. The delivery point for the gas to 
serve Trestle Valley is an existing tap, so there would be no 
construction costs.
    Comment date: December 22, 1994, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

3. Williams Natural Gas Co.

[Docket No. CP95-48-000]

    Take notice that on November 2, 1994, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No. CP95-
48-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.212) for authorization to install a 4-inch tap, approximately 2,000 
feet of 6-inch-diameter lateral pipeline, measuring and appurtenant 
facilities to deliver transportation gas to Ag Processing Inc. (Ag 
Processing) in Buchanan County, Missouri, under WNG's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000 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.
    WNG proposes to install the facilities on WNG's 8-inch-diameter 
line XS-2 in Section 30, Township 57 South, Range 35 West, Buchanan 
County, Missouri to deliver transportation gas to Ag Processing for its 
soybean processing plant. The annual volume delivered is estimated by 
WNG to be approximately 126,000 Dth initially and increase to 1,440,000 
Dth by the third year. The initial peak day volume is estimated by WNG 
to be 1,030 Dth and increase to 6,890 Dth by the third year. WNG states 
that the total volume to be delivered to Ag Processing will not exceed 
the total volume authorized prior to this request. WNG states the cost 
to construct the facilities is approximately $74,900 which will be 
reimbursed by Ag Processing.
    WNG states that this change is not prohibited by an existing 
tariff, and that it has sufficient capacity to accomplish the 
deliveries specified without detriment or disadvantage to its other 
customers.
    WNG also states that this proposal will not significantly affect a 
sensitive environmental area.
    Comment date: December 22, 1994, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

4. Equitrans, Inc.

[Docket No. CP95-53-000]

    Take notice that on November 3, 1994, Equitrans, Inc. (Equitrans), 
3500 Park Lane, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275, filed in Docket No. 
CP95-53-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.212) for authorization to install and operate a delivery tap in 
Waynesburg, Pennsylvania under Equitrans's blanket certificate issued 
in Docket No. CP83-508-000 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.
    Equitrans proposes to install one delivery tap in Waynesburg, 
Pennsylvania to provide gas transportation service to Equitable Gas 
Company. Equitrans states that the projected quantity of gas to be 
delivered will be approximately 1 Mcf on a peak day.
    Comment date: December 22, 1994, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

5. Equitrans, Inc.

[Docket No. CP95-54-000]

    Take notice that on November 3, 1994, Equitrans, Inc. (Equitrans), 
3500 Park Lane, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15275, filed in Docket No. 
CP95-54-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.212) for authorization to install one delivery tap under Equitrans' 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-508-000 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.
    Equitrans proposes to install a delivery tap in Braxton County, 
West Virginia, to provide natural gas transportation service to 
Equitable Gas Company, a division of Equitable Resources, Inc. 
Equitrans states that the quantity of gas to be delivered through the 
proposed delivery tap will be 1 Mcf on a peak day.
    Comment date: December 22, 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, 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.
    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. 94-28202 Filed 11-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P