[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35732-35735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16912]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-577-000, et al.]


Williams Natural Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate 
Filings

July 3, 1995.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Williams Natural Gas Company

Docket No. CP95-577-000

    Take notice that on June 22, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No. CP95-
577-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.216 of 
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.208, 157.216) for authorization to abandon pipeline and measuring 
and regulating facilities and to construct and operate new facilities 
for service to Kansas Gas & Electric (KG&E), a local distribution 
company, in Sedgwick County, Kansas, 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 abandon in place 5,800 feet of 10-inch and 569 feet 
of 8-inch lateral pipeline and to abandon by reclaim obsolete 
measuring, regulating and appurtenant facilities installed to serve 
KG&E's Ripley power plant. It is asserted that, although the power 
plant ceased operations in 1983, WNG still has a need for gas service 
for heating an office and training center located on the premises. WNG 
also proposes to construct and operate 120 feet of 2-inch lateral 
pipeline to continue to provide service to KG&E. It is stated that 
WNG's deliveries to KG&E will not change. The construction cost is 
estimated at $7,435. The cost of reclaiming facilities is estimated at 
$17,506. WNG states that there will be no salvage value as a result of 
the abandonment. WNG further states that it has sufficient capacity to 
render the specified deliveries service without detriment or 
disadvantage to its other existing customers and that its tariff does 
not prohibit the addition of delivery points.
    Comment date: August 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

2. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation

[Docket No. CP95-578-000]

    Take notice that on June 23, 1995, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 
14203, filed in Docket No. CP95-578-000 an application pursuant to 
Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to 
transfer various production and gas supply facilities and abandon 
certain facilities located in the State of New York to its affiliate, 
National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (Distribution), all as more 
fully set forth in the application on file with the Commission and open 
to public inspection.
    National Fuel states that as part of its continuing review of the 
facilities classified on its books as production properties, National 
Fuel has identified 15 pipelines and 14 associated regulating and 
metering stations that are serving a distribution function for 
customers of Distribution. National Fuel states that all but one of the 
15 pipelines, Line R-27 in Cattaraugus County, are nonjurisdictional 
gathering facilities and that Line R-27 was replaced under the 
authority granted to National Fuel in its blanket certificate at Docket 
No. CP83-4. National Fuel states that it proposes to abandon 66 
delivery points located along the pipelines that are to be transferred 
to Distribution. National Fuel states that service to the customers 
served off the facilities will not be affected by the transfer. 
National Fuel states the net book value of the facilities is estimated 
to be $451,733.84 as of December 31, 1994. National Fuel states that 
the transfer of the facilities from National Fuel to Distribution will 
result in 14 new delivery points from National Fuel to Distribution.
    National Fuel states that following the transfer of the facilities 
to Distribution, National Fuel will continue to own and operate 10 well 
lines connecting wells operated by Seneca Resources Corporation 
(Seneca), an affiliate of National Fuel and Distribution, to the 
facilities. National Fuel states that it has not yet been determined 
whether these lines will be sold to Seneca, or another party that may 
acquire the wells from Seneca, or whether one or more of these lines 
will be abandoned following the plugging of a well. National Fuel 
states the net book value of these well lines is estimated to be 
$4,056.74, as of December 31, 1994. National Fuel states that it seeks 
authority to establish new delivery points with Distribution at the 
intersection of these ten well lines with the pipelines they feed into, 
and pregranted authority to abandon these delivery points as the well 
lines are transferred to another party, or the wells are plugged.
    Comment date: July 24, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.

3. Midwestern Gas Transmission Trunkline Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95-581-000]

    Take notice that on June 26, 1995, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), Post Office Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252-2511, 
and Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline), Post Office Box 1642, Houston, 
Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP95-581-000 a joint application 
pursuant to Section 7(b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act for permission 
and approval for Midwestern to abandon and Trunkline to acquire, by 
operating lease, firm capacity on Midwestern's system from Potomac, 
Illinois to downstream delivery points terminating around Chicago in 
Joliet, Illinois in order for Trunkline to provide a transportation 
service to Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company (Peoples), all as more 
fully set forth in the application which is on file 

[[Page 35733]]
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Midwestern proposes to abandon 110,000 Dth per day of firm capacity 
to Trunkline pursuant to a May 13, 1994, Agreement and a pro forma 
Operating Lease Agreement (the Agreements). Trunkline proposes to lease 
110,000 Dth per day of firm capacity pursuant to the agreements to 
provide transportation service to Peoples at a point on Trunkline's 
system without the addition of new facilities. Trunkline proposes to 
acquire the abandoned capacity extending from Potomac, Illinois, where 
Midwestern currently interconnects with Trunkline to points downstream 
of Midwestern's system, through and including the Union Hill and 
Wilmington, Illinois points for deliveries to Peoples.
    Midwestern and Trunkline would execute the Operating Lease 
Agreement upon approval of this application, it is stated. Trunkline 
states that Trunkline would operate and utilize the capacity as if the 
capacity was part of Trunkline's system and that all the delivery 
points on the leased capacity would be available to Trunkline's 
shippers in accordance with the provisions of Trunkline's open access 
transportation tariff and the agreements. Midwestern states that 
Midwestern would lease the 110,000 Dth per day of capacity to Trunkline 
commencing on December 1, 1995, for a primary term of ten years and 
that Trunkline would pay Midwestern a monthly lease payment of $1.734 
per each Dth of leased capacity, plus applicable ACA and 1 per cent 
fuel throughout the primary term of the agreements.
    Comment date: July 24, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.
4. Trunkline Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95-584-000]

    Take notice that on June 28, 1995, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket 
No. CP95-584-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.216 of 
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.216) for authorization to abandon one tap and the related service 
under Trunkline's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-84-000 
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.
    Trunkline proposes to abandon as requested by farm tap customer D. 
R. Siebarth, one tap and the related service. The tap is located in 
Beauregard Parish, Louisiana.
    Comment date: August 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

5. Northern Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95-585-000]

    Take notice that on June 28, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), P.O. Box 3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330, filed in Docket 
No. CP95-585-000, a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of 
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 
and 157.212) for authorization to install and operate one new delivery 
point for Community Utilities Company (C U) for ultimate residential 
and commercial use, and upgrade four existing delivery points for 
Minnegasco for ultimate residential, commercial, and industrial use, 
under Northern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000 
and Section 7(c) 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.
    Northern proposes a new delivery point for C U to be located in 
Olmstead County, Minnesota. Northern states that the proposed point 
will deliver fifty-six Mcf on a peak day and 8,176 Mcf annually. 
Northern also proposes to upgrade four existing delivery points for 
Minnegasco located in Anoka, Isanti, Mille Lacs, and Wright Counties, 
Minnesota. Northern indicates that the upgrade of these existing 
delivery points will increase the peak day capacity of the Annandale 
No. 1 delivery point, the Cambridge No. 1 delivery point, the Lexington 
No. 1A delivery point, and the Princeton No. 1 delivery point, by 40 
Mcf, 60 Mcf, 350 Mcf, and 110 Mcf, respectively. Northern further 
indicates that in addition to the installation and upgrade of the 
proposed and existing delivery points, it will construct branchline 
looping and compression pursuant to its blanket certificate and Section 
157.208(a) of the Commission's Regulations once the authorization 
requested herein becomes effective.
    Northern advises that the new delivery point and the upgrade of the 
four existing delivery points will accommodate deliveries to Minnegasco 
and C U pursuant to executed precedent agreements for self-implementing 
throughput service. Northern further advises that the throughput 
agreements will be executed prior to the construction of the subject 
facilities and that the total volumes to be delivered to Minnegasco and 
C U after the request will not exceed the total volumes authorized 
prior to the request. Northern states that the proposed activity is not 
prohibited by its existing tariff and that Northern has sufficient 
capacity to accommodate the changes proposed herein without detriment 
or disadvantage to Northern's other customers. Northern estimates that 
the total cost to construct the new delivery point and to upgrade the 
four existing delivery points will be $236,000. Northern indicates that 
the financing of the construction will be in accordance with Section 4 
of the General Terms and Conditions of Volume 1 of Northern's tariff.
    Comment date: August 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

6. Williams Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95-586-000]

    Take notice that on June 26, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed a petition for a 
declaratory order in Docket No. CP95-586-000 requesting that the 
Commission issue an order permitting the reclassification of certain 
miscellaneous facilities owned by WNG from the gathering function to 
the transmission function, all as more fully set forth in the petition 
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    WNG states that as a result of the Commission's recognition of the 
separate and distinct nature of the gathering and processing business, 
WNG's corporate parent has entered into a restructuring process 
involving the separation of non-jurisdictional gathering and processing 
services and facilities from the jurisdictional interstate transmission 
companies. WNG notes that it has previously filed a series of 
applications seeking authority to abandon most of its gathering 
facilities to both affiliated and non-affiliated gathering companies. 
WNG asserts that certain minor facilities which had previously been 
functionalized as gathering but which, in WNG's view, do not perform a 
gathering function, were not included in any of the abandonment 
applications. WNG proposes to refunctionalize these facilities to the 
transmission function.
    WNG states that it proposes to refunctionalize 95 pipeline delivery 
settings on its transmission system which consists of taps and 
associated piping and measurement facilities to receive gas from 
gathering facilities owned by others, gas processing plants or other 
pipelines. WNG relates that the facilities proposed to be 
refunctionalized had a net book value on October 1, 1994, of 
approximately $562,000. 

[[Page 35734]]

    Comment date: July 24, 1995, in accordance with the first paragraph 
of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

7. El Paso Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95-587-000]

    Take notice that on June 28, 1995, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso), Post Office Box 1942, El Paso, Texas 79978, filed an application 
at Docket No. CP95-587-000, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas 
Act (NGA) for permission and approval to abandon the firm 
transportation and delivery of 300,000 Mcf per day of natural gas to 
Southern California Gas Company (SoCal) at the Ehrenberg Delivery 
Point, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    El Paso states that El Paso and SoCal are parties to a 
Transportation Service Agreement (TSA) dated October 16, 1990, as 
amended and restated July 16, 1993. El Paso explains that Section 9.4 
of Article IX of the TSA provides for an option which permits SoCal to 
reduce its Transportation Contract Demand. El Paso further explains 
that by letter dated June 1, 1994, SoCal informed El Paso that SoCal 
would exercise the option to reduce its Transportation Contract Demand 
at the Ehrenberg Delivery Point by 300,000 Mcf per day. Accordingly, El 
Paso proposes to reduce SoCal's Transportation Contract Demand by 
300,000 Mcf per day to 1,150,000 Mcf per day, and firm deliveries under 
the TSA by El Paso to SoCal at the Ehrenberg Delivery Point would be 
limited to 610,000 Mcf per day.
    Comment date: July 24, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.
8. Northwest Pipeline Corporation

[Docket No. CP95-591-000]

    Take notice that on June 29, 1995, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, filed in 
Docket No. CP95-591-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 
157.216, and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.216, and 157.211) for approval to abandon 
certain facilities at the Roseburg Meter Station in Douglas County, 
Oregon, and to construct and operate upgraded replacement facilities at 
the Roseburg Meter Station to better accommodate existing firm maximum 
daily delivery obligations at this delivery point to the Washington 
Water Power Company (Water Power) under the blanket certificate issued 
in Docket No. CP82-433-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) 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.
    Northwest proposes to upgrade the Roseburg Meter Station by 
replacing the existing 4-inch orifice meter with a new 4-inch turbine 
meter. Northwest says it plans to install a 4-inch filter upstream of 
the new 4-inch turbine meter. Northwest states that the proposed 
facility upgrade will increase the maximum design capacity of the meter 
station from 3,440 Dth per day to approximately 6,880 Dth per day at 
the 150 psig contract pressure.
    Northwest relates that the total cost of the proposed facility 
upgrade at the Roseburg Meter Station is estimated to be approximately 
$82,652. Northwest indicates that because the upgrade will be made to 
allow Northwest to better accommodate existing delivery obligations at 
the Roseburg Meter Station, Northwest will not require any cost 
reimbursement from Water Power. Northwest states that the proposed 
facility replacement will occur entirely within the existing fenced and 
graveled meter station site.
    Comment date: August 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

9. Northern Natural Gas Company And Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation

[Docket No. CP95-592-000]

    Take notice that on June 29, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000 and 
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (TGPL), P.O. Box 1396, 
Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP95-592-000 a joint 
application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act for 
permission and approval to abandon service under an individually 
certificated exchange agreement, which was authorized in Docket No. 
CP81-75, all as more fully set forth in the application on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specifically, Northern and TGPL propose to abandon Rate Schedules 
X-87 and X-237 contained in their respective FERC Gas Tariffs, Original 
Volumes No. 2. It is stated that the parties mutually agree to the 
termination of the service under these rate schedules.
    Comment date: July 24, 1995, 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, 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 

[[Page 35735]]
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-16912 Filed 7-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P