[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 51786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24487]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-779-000]


Gateway Pipeline Company, Complainant v. Western Gas Interstate 
Company, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

September 27, 1995.
    Take notice that on September 26, 1995, Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Complainant), 333 North Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, Texas 
77060, filed a complaint in Docket No. CP95-779-000, pursuant to 
Section 385.206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.206) against Western Gas Interstate Company (Respondent) to 
immediately cease and desist all activity related to its application 
filed in Docket No. CP95-606-000, as amended. Complainant states that 
this pleading is in response to respondent's on-going construction 
activities related to the proposed interstate transmission facilities 
identified in the above-mentioned proceeding, all as more fully set 
forth in the complaint which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Complainant states that respondent has already constructed the 
permanent delivery point facilities for which it currently has pending 
an application for construction authority in Docket No. CP95-606-000, 
and it is now in the process of constructing the associated permanent 
mainline transmission facilities for which it has pending an 
application in Docket No. CP95-606-001. Complainant states that 
respondent began construction of these mainline facilities on Friday, 
September 22, 1995, and as of Sunday, September 24, has already strung, 
welded and buried some four miles of mainline transmission pipeline. 
Complainant states that at respondent's current pace, it should 
complete the construction and installation of nearly all of the 16-mile 
mainline by the end of the week ending September 30, 1995, and the 
facilities should be operational within three weeks.
    Complainant asserts that respondent has no authority to construct 
these facilities, because the amendment to the pending application 
filed in Docket No. CP95-606-001 is still pending before the 
Commission, and the Commission is in the process of conducting an 
environmental assessment of respondent's proposal.
    Complainant also asserts that respondent's construction activities 
therefore appear to violate Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 
which, among other things, requires natural gas companies to secure 
prior approval of proposals to construct and operate facilities used 
for the transmission of gas in interstate commerce.
    Complainant further asserts that by respondent having unilaterally 
decided to begin constructing its interstate transmission facilities 
without obtaining prior Commission approval of its application, 
respondent has now in effect told the Commission: ``Never mind''; 
respondent never really needed to file anything because these are NGPA 
Section 311 facilities.\1\

    \1\In the Notice of Withdrawal, respondent attempts to withdraw 
both its request and abbreviated application, claiming that both of 
these applications have ``become moot, because [Western] will 
construct and operate the 15.5 miles of 8'' pipeline and sales tap 
to the Seaboard Farm (Seaboard) processing plant * * * pursuant to 
Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act.'' Notice of Withdrawal at 
1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Complainant states that the Commission should reject Western's 
transparent and flagrant attempt to rationalize, on a post hoc basis, 
citing what it considers respondent's ``no-holds-barred'' effort to get 
its pipeline in the ground. In its petition, complainant states that 
these facilities are not even arguably legitimate 311 facilities--
``facilities utilized solely for transportation authorized under 
Section 311(a) of the NGPA''\2\--since no intrastate or LDC entity is 
involved in the proposed transportation transaction to Seaboard.\3\

    \2\18 CFR 284.3(c).
    \3\According to Exhibit I of Western's Abbreviated Application, 
Seaboard is to be served by Western under a Rate Schedule FT-N 
transportation contract executed by Seaboard. Nowhere in that 
contract or in the abbreviated application is there any mention of 
an LDC or intrastate pipeline ``on behalf of'' entity, the essential 
element for transportation service to qualify as a Section 311(a) 
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, complainant states that respondent's FERC filings have 
evidence a pronounced ``make-it-up-as-we-go'' flavor, geared toward 
getting its pipeline in the ground as soon as possible, with as little 
Commission scrutiny as it can get by with. Complainant further states 
that respondent is not content to wait for a Commission order on its 
abbreviated application and has decided simply to construct its 
pipeline, apparently hoping that it can cure any FERC problems after 
its pipeline is up and running. Complainant argues that the Commission 
should not tolerate respondent's disregard of Commission authority.
    Complainant requests that, in order to prevent respondent from 
completing the construction and installation of its entire project and 
to preserve the status quo pending Commission investigation of this 
complaint, the Director of Enforcement issue by telephone a cease and 
desist order directly to respondent's offices, via telephone, by close-
of-business on September 25, 1995, but in no event later than 12 noon 
September 26, 1995. Complainant also requests that the Commission 
should (1) institute an investigation into respondent's construction 
activities related to respondent's application, (2) order respondent to 
show cause why it should not be held in violation of Section 7(c) of 
the NGA, and thus subject to penalties under Section 21 of the NGA, 
including criminal and civil penalties under Sections 21(a) and 21(b), 
respectively, of the NGA and (3) grant other appropriate relief 
pursuant to Sections 5 and 16 of the NGA as a result of the requested 
investigation.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make protest with reference 
to said complaint should on or before October 4, 1995, 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). 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 are also due on or before 
October 4, 1995.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-24487 Filed 10-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M