[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 717-719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-342]



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

[[Page 718]]


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-109-000, et al.]


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

January 2, 1996.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Williams Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP96-109-000]

    Take notice that on December 18, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(Williams), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74101, filed in Docket No. 
CP96-109-000 a request pursuant to Section 157.205 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,) for approval to 
extend an existing 4-inch loop line an additional 1.3 miles to provide 
increased delivery volumes to Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) for the Simmons 
chicken farm located in McDonald County, Missouri under Williams' 
blanket certificate authority issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000, 
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more 
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Williams indicates that the original loop line was constructed 
pursuant to Docket No. CP86-634-000. Williams states that the total 
construction cost is estimated to be $407,956 which cost will be offset 
by the execution of a new firm transportation agreement by MGE. It is 
indicated that the new loop extension will provide an additional 1.87 
Mmcf per day of capacity to MGE on a peak day.
    Comment date: February 16, 1996, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

2. East Tennessee Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP96-115-000]

    Take notice that on December 21, 1995, East Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (East Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, filed in 
Docket No. CP96-115-000 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 switch its existing 2-inch 
connection to an existing 6-inch connection for continuing firm service 
to Knoxville Utilities Board (KUB), under East Tennessee's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-412-000 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.
    East Tennessee proposes to construct and operate a side valve and 
20 feet of 6-inch pipeline at M.P. 3114-1+2.97 of the KUB Storage 
Facility Line located in Knox County, Tennessee in order to use an 
existing, plugged 6-inch tap located next to the 2-inch tap currently 
being used. East Tennessee states that these new facilities would cost 
$10,600 and the existing 2-inch connection would be removed once the 
physical connection to the 6-inch tap has been placed in service. East 
Tennessee mentions that KUB requested this modification because of 
increased residential growth in its service area.
    East Tennessee asserts that the proposed connection is not 
prohibited by its tariff and the total quantities of natural gas to be 
delivered to KUB after switching its connection would not exceed the 
total quantities authorized to be delivered. East Tennessee also 
mentions that it has sufficient capacity to accomplish deliveries at 
the proposed delivery point without detriment or disadvantage to its 
other customers.
    Comment date: February 16, 1996, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

3. MarkWest Hydrocarbon Partners, Ltd.

[Docket No. CP96-121-000]

    Take notice that, on December 22, 1995, in Docket No. CP96-121-000, 
MarkWest Hydrocarbon Partners, Ltd. (MarkWest), 5613 DTC Parkway, Suite 
400, Englewood, Colorado 80111, filed a petition with the Commission, 
pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.307), for a declaratory order disclaiming 
jurisdiction over gas processing facilities that MarkWest is 
constructing on land it purchased from Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) at Columbia's Kenova Processing Plant (a.k.a. 
the Kenova Station or the Kenova plant), all as more fully set forth in 
the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    In a related proceeding, in Docket No. CP96-118-000, Columbia filed 
an abbreviated application for permission and approval to abandon the 
Kenova plant, by sale to MarkWest.
    MarkWest states that, since its 1988 acquisition of the Siloam, 
Kentucky fractionation plant from Columbia Hydrocarbon (a former 
affiliate of Columbia), MarkWest has been contractually obligated to 
purchase natural gas liquids (NGL) from Columbia, and Columbia has been 
contractually obligated to deliver, to MarkWest, the NGL that Columbia 
extracted at its Kenova and Cobb processing plants. MarkWest adds that, 
because the Kenova plant is old, inefficient, and outmoded, having been 
built in 1958, Columbia decided to replace it, and undertook a 
competitive bidding process to solicit proposals from third parties 
interested in: (1) purchasing and replacing the existing Kenova plant; 
(2) demolishing and remediating the old facility site; (3) taking over 
the Kenova plant processing function with Columbia's shippers; and (4) 
dealing with the Columbia-MarkWest contract. MarkWest, as the winning 
bidder, has since moved to construct a new Kenova processing plant, and 
states that it expects the new facility to be in service by mid-to-late 
December, 1995.
    MarkWest asserts that the Commission's jurisdiction under the 
Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 717) is limited to natural gas, which 
has been construed to mean methane, not the heavier hydrocarbons that 
constitute NGL, while the primary purpose of new Kenova processing 
plant will be to continue the Columbia-MarkWest contract function, 
which (from MarkWest's perspective) will be the extraction of NGL for 
sale by MarkWest.
    MarkWest further states that there was no Federal Power Commission 
certification for the Kenova plant. Therefore, MarkWest believes that 
its construction, ownership, and operation of the new processing plant 
will be outside the Commission's certificate jurisdiction under section 
7 of the Natural Gas Act. Accordingly, to the extent that the 
Commission deems it necessary to act on Columbia's abandonment 
application, MarkWest requests the Commission to issue an order finding 
that the new Kenova processing plant is outside the Commission's 
certificate jurisdiction under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
    Comment date: January 23, 1996, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

4. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

[Docket No. CP96-118-000]

    Take notice that on December 22, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West 
Virginia 25314-1599, filed an abbreviated application in Docket No. 
CP96-118-000, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, Part 157 
of the Commission's Regulations, and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, for permission and approval to abandon its Kenova 
Processing Plant 

[[Page 719]]
(a.k.a. the Kenova Station or the Kenova plant), by sale to MarkWest 
Hydrocarbon Partners, Ltd. (MarkWest), all as more fully set forth in 
the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    In a related proceeding, in Docket No. CP96-121-000, MarkWest filed 
a petition with the Commission for a declaratory order disclaiming 
jurisdiction over the gas processing facilities that MarkWest is 
constructing on land purchased from Columbia at the Kenova plant site.
    The Kenova plant is located in Wayne County, West Virginia. It was 
designed and built in 1957-1958, and was designed to remove essentially 
all of the propane and heavier hydrocarbons (i.e., natural gas liquids, 
or NGL) and water vapor from the gas stream entering Columbia's 
transmission system. The gas processed at the Kenova plant originates 
as production from fields in southern West Virginia and eastern 
Kentucky. Since it began operation in 1958, the NGL removed from this 
gas stream at the Kenova plant is recovered as one mixed liquid and is 
transported via a pipeline owned by MarkWest to Siloam, Kentucky, for 
further separation, purification, and sale of the NGL by MarkWest.
    Columbia states that the Kenova plant needs to be replaced, because 
of its age and deteriorating condition, with more modern and efficient 
gas processing facilities. Columbia adds that it believes the public 
interest can best be served through its abandonment the existing Kenova 
plant, thereby allowing a non-jurisdictional company to continue the 
processing service now being provided. Columbia notes that MarkWest has 
purchased the existing facilities at the Kenova site, that those 
facilities are being removed, and that MarkWest is constructing and 
will operate new gas processing facilities at the Kenova site, thereby 
allowing MarkWest to remove certain hydrocarbons from the natural gas 
being transported on Columbia's pipeline system.
    To Columbia's knowledge, no certificate exists for the Kenova 
plant, due to the Commission's historical view that its jurisdiction 
generally does not encompass processing plants. However, to the extent 
deemed necessary by the Commission, Columbia requests authorization to 
abandon the existing Kenova plant, by sale to MarkWest.
    Comment date: January 23, 1996, 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 
the 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 
therefore, 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. 96-342 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P