[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11666-11667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5109]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-218-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Petition for Declaratory Order

February 24, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 22, 1995, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77252-1642, 
filed in Docket No. CP95-218-000 a petition under Rule 207 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207) 
requesting that the Commission confirm that Order No. 636 does not 
create a per se rule prohibiting interstate pipelines which have 
implemented Order No. 636 from entering into contracts for 
transportation or storage capacity on other interstate pipelines.
    Texas Eastern submits that the Commission's preliminary 
determination in Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 69 FERC 
61,132 (1994),\1\ incorrectly created a per se rule that precludes a 
pipeline from holding pipeline capacity on other pipelines for economic 
(as distinguished from operational) reasons. Texas Eastern contends 
that such a per se rule against economically desirable transactions is 
contrary to the policy behind Order No. 636 and is in conflict with 
prior Commission decisions. It is asserted that, if not corrected, the 
position that interstate pipelines cannot contract for capacity on 
other interstate pipelines will undermine the Commission's efforts in 
Order No. 636 to create a flexible, competitively responsive natural 
gas industry. Texas Eastern states that the ultimate loser will be not 
just interstate pipelines, but consumers who need new facilities and 
services as well.

    \1\Texas Eastern states that the Request for Hearing of this 
decision has been rendered moot by a settlement filed by the parties 
in this proceeding on February 21, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas Eastern asserts that, unless corrected, the preliminary order 
will foreclose the development of new services in most circumstances in 
which more than one pipeline is needed to perform a new service. It is 
stated that in the new, post-Order No. 636 environment, it is 
critically important that pipelines be allowed to hold capacity on 
upstream or downstream pipelines. To create new services for new 
markets, Texas Eastern contends that a pipeline must be able to acquire 
firm transportation capacity rights on other pipelines in areas where 
the pipeline does not have transportation facilities.
    Texas Eastern contends that the Commission will still have its 
jurisdiction to review contracts between pipelines and may withhold 
approval where it finds them to be anti-competitive or otherwise 
contrary to the public interest. It is stated that the Commission 
should not, however, create a per se rule against pipelines holding 
capacity on upstream or downstream pipelines. Texas Eastern argues that 
where the contractual arrangement is not opposed by any party and is 
being used to provide new services demanded by the market, such 
arrangements should be permitted. Texas Eastern submits that the 
Commission should promptly issue a Declaratory Order finding that 
interstate pipelines that have implemented Order No. 636 may contract 
for transportation or storage capacity on other interstate pipelines.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said petition should on or before March 17, 1995, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, 
a motion to intervene or a [[Page 11667]] 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5109 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M