[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39720-39723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19126]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-636-000, et al.]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, et al. Natural Gas 
Certificate Filings

July 28, 1995.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation )

[Docket No. CP95-636-000]

    Take notice that on July 24, 1995, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, 
filed pursuant to and in accordance with Section 7(b) of the Natural 
Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's Regulations, an application in the above docket for an 
order approving the partial abandonment of Transco's Exxon Lateral, 
located in Mobile County, Alabama, to enable Transco to sell a partial 
ownership interest in such facility to Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(FGT), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection. 

[[Page 39721]]

    Specifically, Transco states that pursuant to the authorizations 
granted by the Commission in Docket No. CP92-182, et al., Transco and 
FGT jointly own and operate the Mobil Bay Lateral (Also referred to 
sometimes as the ``Onshore Mobil Bay Pipeline''), a 123.4 mile, 30-inch 
diameter pipeline extending from the Mobil Oil Exploration and 
Producing Southeast Inc., gas treatment plant near Coden in Mobile 
County, Alabama, to an interconnection with FGT's main line near 
Citronelle, Alabama, and on to an interconnection with Transco's main 
line near Butler, Alabama. Transco further states that in June 1994, it 
completed construction of a two-mile, 26-inch diameter pipeline, 
referred to as the ``Exxon Lateral'', extending from an interconnection 
with Mobil Bay Lateral to an interconnection with the Exxon Mobil Bay 
Partnership gas treatment plant (Exxon Plant) located near Coden in 
Mobile County, Alabama.
    Transco states that it has agreed to sell, and FGT has agreed to 
purchase, a 37.22% undivided ownership interest in the Exxon Lateral. 
The purchase price to be paid by FGT for such ownership interest will 
be 37.22% of Transco's net book value of the Exxon Lateral as of the 
closing of the purchase and sale.
    Comment date: August 7, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.

2. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

[Docket No. CP95-637-000]

    Take notice that on July 24, 1995, Iroquois Gas Transmission 
System, L.P. (Iroquois), One Corporate Drive, Suite 600, Shelton, 
Connecticut 06484, filed in Docket No. CP95-637-000, an application 
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity authorizing it to construct and 
operate a compressor station to be located near Athens, New York. 
Iroquois states that the compressor station is necessary to provide 
natural gas transportation services for three shippers in an aggregate 
amount of 75,000 Mcf per day (Mcf/d). Iroquois proposal is more fully 
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Iroquois proposes to construct and operate a new compressor station 
to be located near Athens, Greene County, New York. The proposed Athens 
compressor station will be the third compressor station on Iroquois' 
system and will be rated as a 9,500 horsepower turbo-compressor unit. 
Iroquois says that this new compressor station, along with other system 
design and operational changes, will be required to provide the 75,000 
Mcf/d of requested firm service. The estimated cost of the proposed 
Athens compressor station is approximately $21 million, as detailed in 
Exhibit K of Iroquois' application. The other system design changes 
described by Iroquois include aerodynamic assembly changes at Iroquois' 
Wright compressor station which will increase the capacity made 
available by that station; and the installation of a new compressor 
station by TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. at Iroquois, Ontario, which will 
increase the pressure at which deliveries are made by TransCanada into 
the Iroquois system at Waddington, New York from 1400 psig to 1440 
psig.
    In its application Iroquois states that it has entered into 
Precedent Agreements with CNG Energy Services Corporation for new firm 
transportation service for 50,000 Mcf/d, with Enron Capital and Trade 
Resources Corporation for new firm transportation service for 15,000 
Mcf/d, and with Coastal Gas Marketing Company for new firm 
transportation service for 10,000 Mcf/d. Iroquois proposes to provide 
firm gas transportation service for these three shippers under its Part 
284, Subpart G, Blanket Certificate and will be performed pursuant to 
Iroquois' RTS Rate Schedule and associated General Terms and Conditions 
of Iroquois' FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1. Iroquois will 
charge its effective Part 284 open-access RTS rates for the new 
service.
    Iroquois proposes to roll-in the costs of the construction and 
operation of the new Athens compressor station with the costs and rates 
of its existing system. Consistent with the Commission's recently 
issued policy statement in Docket No. PL94-4, Iroquois has filed a 
schedule which details the anticipated annual costs of the Athens 
compressor station and the increased system revenues associated with 
the new transportation service. Iroquois says that the schedule clearly 
shows that construction and installation of the Athens compressor 
station and a rolling in of the associated costs and revenues will have 
no detrimental financial impact on Iroquois' existing shippers. 
Iroquois anticipates that the net effect of such a rolling in will 
benefit existing shippers by reducing their annual costs by $1.6 
million. Iroquois says that the impact of this benefit will be almost 
immediate, because the new service is proposed to commence on November 
1, 1996, and Iroquois is required to file its next rate case on 
November 29, 1996, with such filing having an anticipated effective 
date of January 1, 1997.
    Iroquois proposes to collect the return of capital for the Athens 
compressor station through the use of a 10% depreciation rate for this 
specific facility. Iroquois says that the 10% depreciation rate is 
consistent with the contractual arrangements supporting installation of 
the Athens compressor station and will allow Iroquois to recover the 
costs of the station over a period equal to the ten-year term of those 
contracts.
    Iroquois is a limited partnership organized under the laws of 
Delaware. The limited partnership consists of eleven general partners 
and one limited partner, whose names and respective percentage 
interests are shown in Iroquois' application. The Iroquois pipeline 
extends from the New York-Canadian border near Iroquois, Ontario, 
through the states of New York and Connecticut, and terminates near 
South Commack, New York on Long Island.
    Comment date: August 21, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
3. Intermountain Municipal Gas Association

[Docket No. CP95-638-000]

    Take notice that on July 21, 1995, InterMountain Municipal Gas 
Association (IMGA) 1 , C/O Wheatley & Ranquist, 34 Defense Street, 
Annapolis, MD 21401 filed in Docket No. CP95-638-000 a petition under 
Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.207) for a declaratory order resolving the following jurisdictional 
issues: (1) Does the Utah Public Service Commission have jurisdiction 
over transportation of natural gas through Mountain Fuel 's pipeline 
for delivery to certain members of the IMGA (Cities) and the Cities' 
request for interconnections with Mountain Fuel; or (2) Does the 
Commission have sole jurisdiction pursuant to the petition of the 
Cities of said transportation under the Natural Gas Act?

    \1\ Members of the IMGA consist of the Cities of Blanding, 
Fayette, Hatch, Hilldale, Kanab, Manilla, Panquitch, Utah and 
Colorado City, Arizona. It is stated that these Cities represent the 
interests of 32 Cities in the State of Utah who are in the same or 
similar situation of having the need for a natural gas supply and 
are unable to obtain that benefit unless access to transportation 
over Mountain Fuel Supply Company's (Mountain Fuel) pipeline to the 
points of delivery for the various Cities is obtained. It is stated 
that Cities outside the State of Utah will receive gas into their 
transmission facilities at the Utah State line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is stated that the Cities plan to establish municipally-owned 
natural gas distribution systems in their communities to serve the 
residential, commercial and industrial customers 

[[Page 39722]]
located therein desiring such service. It is stated that, at present, 
there is no natural gas service available in each of the Cities. The 
Cities contend that they have undertaken preliminary arrangements for 
such services and are assured that they can purchase the necessary 
supplies of natural gas in the interstate market from producers or 
marketers and can obtain the transportation of such natural gas by 
interstate pipeline companies to subsequent points of interconnection 
between those pipelines and Mountain Fuel. Cities states that Mountain 
Fuel has a pipeline system and available capacity to deliver such gas 
at points close to the Cities, where the Cities would construct lateral 
line facilities to Mountain Fuel's existing line. It is stated that 
Cities seek transportation contracts from Mountain Fuel to ensure a 
supply of gas to their high priority customers.
    Cities contends that its petition has become necessary because the 
Utah Public Service Commission (Utah PSC) has declined to exercise its 
jurisdiction to order Mountain Fuel to undertake such transportation 
for Cities until it knows whether such transportation of interstate gas 
on behalf of a municipality would constitute a ``sale for resale'' 
under Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act and thereby be controlled by 
the provisions of Federal law, which vests in the Commission sole 
jurisdiction concerning sales for resale. It is stated that Mountain 
Fuel has refused to transport gas on behalf of the Cities under any 
terms. It is further stated that Mountain Fuel apparently denies that 
either the Commission or the Utah PSC has jurisdiction over the 
requested transportation service and has denied that it has any 
obligation to transport gas for any City, either under the jurisdiction 
of the Commission or the Utah PSC. IMGA states that it therefore filed 
its petition for declaratory order in order to resolve the 
jurisdictional issue or controversy and to remove uncertainty over the 
proposed interconnections and transportation service. Cities requests 
that the Commission declare that the Utah PSC has jurisdiction over the 
proposed transportation service or, in the alternative, that the 
Commission has jurisdiction over the transportation proposed by the 
Cities, and in the event the Commission is declared to have 
jurisdiction, the Cities request that the declaratory order provide 
that IMGA and its affected Cities may file an application under Section 
7(a) of the Natural Gas Act requesting the Commission to order Mountain 
Fuel to interconnect with the Cities.
    Comment date: August 18, 1995, in accordance with the first 
paragraph of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

3. Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation

[Docket No. CP95-642-000]

    Take notice that on July 26, 1995, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, P.O. Box 1642, 
Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP95-642-000 a request 
pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for 
authorization to construct and operate tap facilities for two new 
delivery points under Texas Eastern's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket No. CP82-535-000 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.
    Texas Eastern proposes to install tap facilities at two locations 
as well as electronic gas measurement equipment (EGM) at both 
locations, as described below. Texas Eastern states that the facilities 
will enable deliveries of natural gas to Mississippi Valley Gas Company 
(MVG) and that MVG has agreed to reimburse it for 100% of the costs and 
related expenses. Texas Eastern further states that it would provide 
transportation services for MVG under its Part 284 blanket certificate 
issued in Docket No. CP88-136-000, and pursuant to existing service 
agreements under Rate Schedules SCT and SS-1 of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Details of the proposal follow:
    1. Texas Eastern proposes to construct a 4-inch tap valve, a 4-inch 
check valve, an insulating flange and approximately 25 feet of 4-inch 
piping between the tap valve, check valve and insulating flange on 
Texas Eastern's 20-inch Line No. 26 at approximately milepost 107.62 in 
Yazoo County, Mississippi. Texas Eastern indicates that the daily 
maximum quantity would be 8,000 Mcf/day, and the costs and expenses are 
estimated to be $71,400.
    2. Texas Eastern would construct a 2-inch tap valve, a 2-inch check 
valve, an insulating flange and approximately 25 feet of 2-inch piping 
between the tap valve, check valve and insulating flange on its 30-inch 
Line No. 18 at approximately milepost 324.44 in Madison County, 
Mississippi. It is indicated that the daily maximum quantity would be 
2,500 Mcf/day, and the costs and expenses would be $56,400.
    Comment date: September 11, 1995, 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 

[[Page 39723]]
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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-19126 Filed 8-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P