[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29089-29092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-519-000, et al.]
NorAm Gas Transmission Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate
Filings
May 31, 1996.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. NorAm Gas Transmission Company
[Docket No. CP96-519-000]
Take notice that on May 13, 1996, as supplemented on May 28, 1996,
NorAm Gas Transmission Company (NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas
77002, filed in Docket No. CP96-519-000, a request pursuant to Sections
157.205, 157.211 and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 18 CFR 157.211, and 157.216) for
authorization under its blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-
384-000 and CP82-384-001, pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act,
to abandon certain facilities in Arkansas and Louisiana and to operate
their existing replacement facilities as jurisdictional facilities to
provide transportation services under Subpart G of Part 284 of the
Commission's regulations, all as more fully set forth in the request
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
NGT requests authority, pursuant to 18 CFR 157.216, to abandon one
2-inch tap and 2-inch U-Shape meter station located on NGT's N Line in
Caddo Parish, Louisiana. NGT relates that these facilities were
originally installed in 1952, and certificated in Docket No. G-252, to
serve ARKLA, a distribution division of NorAM Energy Corp. (ARKLA).
Additionally, NGT requests authority, pursuant to 18 CFR 157.216, to
abandon two 1-inch first-cut regulators located on NGT's Line TM-3 in
Hot Spring County, Arkansas. NGT relates that these facilities were
originally installed in 1967, and certificated in Docket No. CP67-83-
000, to serve ARKLA. NGT says no service is to be abandoned, and the
abandoned facilities will be reclaimed.
NGT seeks authority to operate the existing 4-inch tap and 4-inch
Skid-mounted meter station (which replaced the one 2-inch tap and 2-
inch U-Shape meter station) on NGT's Line N in Section 30, Township 17
North, Range 14 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana in order to provide
transportation services under Subpart G of Part 284 of the Commission's
regulations. NGT states that these facilities were installed in April
1996, solely to provide services authorized under Section 311 of the
NGPA and Subpart B of the Commission's regulations, to serve ARKLA's
request for increased volumes. NGT states the estimated volumes to be
delivered are approximately 127,000 MMBtu annually and 400 MMBtu on a
peak day on an interruptible basis. NGT says these facilities were
constructed at an estimated cost of $24,193 and ARKLA will reimburse
NGT the total construction cost.
NGT seeks authority to operate two existing 1-inch Moonne first-cut
regulators (which replaced the two 1-inch first-cut regulators) located
on NGT's Line TM-3 in Section 16, Township 4 South, Range 16 West, Hot
Spring County, Arkansas in order to provide transportation services
under Subpart G of Part 284 of the Commission's regulations. NGT states
these facilities were installed in March 1996, solely to provide
services authorized under Section 311 of the NGPA and Subpart B of the
Commission's regulations to serve ARKLA's distribution customers at its
existing Malvern Town Border Station. NGT states the estimated volumes
to be delivered through these facilities are
[[Page 29090]]
approximately 1,460,000 MMBtu annually and 4,000 MMBtu on a peak day on
an interruptible basis. NGT says that the facilities were constructed
at an estimated cost of $6,834, and ARKLA will reimburse NGT $5,150 of
the construction cost.
Comment date: July 15, 1996, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
G at the end of this notice.
2. UtiliCorp Pipeline Systems, Inc., Complainant, v. Panhandle Eastern
Pipe Line Company, Respondent
[Docket No. CP96-538-000]
Take notice that on May 23, 1996, UtiliCorp Pipeline Systems, Inc.
(UPL), 10700 East 350 Highway, Kansas City, Missouri, 64138, filed a
complaint in Docket No. CP96-538-000, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Natural Gas Act and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure. UPL charges that Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
(Panhandle) has acted in an unduly discriminatory and anticompetitive
manner, and requests that Panhandle be ordered to provide an
interconnection in Cass County, Missouri, with facilities to be owned
by UPL's intrastate pipeline subsidiary, Missouri Pipeline Company
(Missouri Pipeline), all as more fully set forth in the complaint which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
UPL also requests that, to the extent that the Commission finds
that additional procedures, such as a show cause proceeding or an
evidentiary hearing, are required to resolve the complaint, its
complaint be consolidated with the previously filed complaints against
Panhandle by Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) in Docket No. CP95-755 and by
Mid Continent Market Center in Docket No. CP96-270. UPL states that the
evidentiary record is more developed in those proceedings and they
involve nearly identical facts and legal questions as represented in
UPL's complaint.
Missouri Pipeline, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UPL, plans to
acquire an abandoned oil pipeline and to convert a portion of the line
to natural gas service as an intrastate pipeline extending about 32
miles from a point near Freeman, Missouri to a terminus near Sugar
Creek in Jackson County, Missouri. Missouri Pipeline will use this
pipeline, referred to as the Hawthorne project, to provide high
pressure natural gas service to the Kansas City Power & Light Company
Hawthorne Power Plant. The Hawthorne project will also have several
other delivery points into MGE's local distribution system.
UPL states that it requested that Panhandle provide an
interconnection with the Hawthorne project facilities, and offered to
pay all the costs of the interconnection. UPL states that Panhandle
responded that unless UPL had incremental firm transportation
agreements for service into the Hawthorne project facilities, Panhandle
would not allow an interconnection. UPL avers that Panhandle has, at
other times and places, been willing to provide interconnections for
interruptible service to end-users, but refuses to provide
interconnections for potential competitors such as UPL, MGE, and Mid
Continent Market Center.
Comment date: June 21, 1996, in accordance with the first paragraph
of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice. Answers to the
Complaint shall also be due on or before June 21, 1996.
3. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
[Docket No. CP96-542-000]
Take notice that on May 24, 1996, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company (Panhandle), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251 filed in
Docket No. CP96-542-000, a petition pursuant to Section 16 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207 (a)(2)), for a declaratory order
concerning the present and future jurisdictional status of Mid
Continent Market Center, Inc. (Mid Continent). Panhandle's reasons for
its request are all more fully set forth in the petition which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Mid Continent was granted an NGA Section 1(c) ``Hindshaw''
exemption and a Section 284.224 Blanket Certificate by the Commission
in 1995, see order at 72 FERC para. 62,274. Mid Continent has a
complaint pending with the Commission against Panhandle in Docket Nos.
CP96-270-000 and 001, see notices at 61 FR 18132 and 61 FR 25854. The
complaint(s) concerns Panhandle's interconnection with KN Interstate
Transmission Company's (KN Interstate) Haven Line pipeline segment in
Reno County, Kansas. Mid Continent intends to buy the Haven Line from
KN Interstate and construct a 9-mile pipeline segment to connect its
system to the Haven Line.
Once such facilities are constructed and such pipeline
interconnections are available to Mid Continent, Panhandle says that
Mid Continent will no longer qualify for its Hindshaw exemption,
because Mid Continent will be able to, and intends to, transport
natural gas in interstate commerce for ultimate consumption outside the
state of Kansas. Panhandle furthers says that Mid Continent will then
have to file with the Commission for various certificate authorizations
under Section 7 of the NGA, if it wants to initiate such interstate
transportation services. Panhandle says that Mid Continent will have an
unfair competitive advantage over jurisdictional interstate pipelines
who have substantially more regulatory requirements, if Mid Continent
is allowed to continue to operate under its Hindshaw exemption.
Panhandle petitions the Commission to make a finding that Mid
Continent will no longer qualify for its Hindshaw exemption from the
Commission's jurisdiction, and that Mid Continent will become a
``natural gas company'' subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, if
Mid Continent completes its purchase of the Haven Line. Panhandle also
wants the Commission to confirm that as a natural gas company, Mid
Continent cannot continue its interstate operations unless it is
granted:
(1) A Section 7(c) certificate to acquire the Haven Line;
(2) A Section 7(c) certificate to construct and/or operate any
facilities connected to the Haven Line;
(3) A Section 284.221 Blanket Certificate; and,
(4) Approval of a Part 284 open access FERC Gas Tariff.
Further, Panhandle suggests that Mid Continent may be presently
providing substantial interstate transportation service between various
interstate pipelines within the state of Kansas, rather than interstate
transportation service for its parent company, Western Resources, Inc.,
a local distribution company (LDC) in Kansas, and that LDC's customers.
Panhandle says that Mid Continent's Hindshaw exemption was based on the
later and intimates that Mid Continent's Hindshaw exemption may already
be in jeopardy in light of the various recent Commission rulings cited.
Comment date: June 21, 1996, in accordance with the first paragraph
of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
4. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
[Docket No. CP96-545-000]
Take notice that on May 29, 1996, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation (Transco), P. O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in
Docket No. CP96-545-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
for authorization to construct and operate
[[Page 29091]]
certain pipeline facilities on Transco's system in order to create
additional firm transportation capacity of the dekatherm equivalent of
115,000 Mcf of gas per day (Mcf/d) from points of receipt on Transco's
Leidy Line to points of delivery in Transco's Northeast Market area by
a proposed in-service date of November 1, 1997 (the SeaBoard Expansion
Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Transco states that the firm transportation service under the
SeaBoard Expansion Project will be provided to seven shippers under
Rate Schedule FT of Transco's FERC Gas Tariff, Volume No. 1, and
Transco's blanket certificate under Part 284(G) of the Commission's
regulations, and therefore, the SeaBoard firm transportation service
will be subject to the terms and conditions of Transco's tariff as
amended from time-to-time. Transco states that the Seaboard shippers
have committed to firm transportation service for terms ranging from 15
to 21 years subject to the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals
(including rolled-in rates) and the construction of the necessary
facilities. It is stated that the SeaBoard Expansion Project will
provide SeaBoard shippers with access to diverse natural gas supply
sources at the Leidy area, including but not limited to, gas supplies
sources on three interconnecting pipelines, purchased from suppliers,
or delivered from third party storage providers at Leidy, Pennsylvania.
In order to provide the firm transportation service to the SeaBoard
shippers, Transco proposes to construct, install and operate five
pipeline loop segments and add a 15,000 horsepower (hp) compressor at
its existing Compressor Station No. 205.
Transco states that it conducted an open season from August 7
through September 6, 1995, during which requests were accepted for up
to 115,000 Mcf/d of firm transportation from points of receipt on
Transco's Leidy Line to most points of delivery on the Transco system.
As a result of the open season, Transco contends that it executed
precedent agreements with seven shippers for a total of 115,000 Mcf/d
of firm transportation capacity, fully subscribing the project. It is
stated that the list of shippers participating in the SeaBoard
Expansion Project and their corresponding transportation quantities and
contract terms are set forth in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Contract transportation
Shipper term contract quantity
(Yrs) (Mcf/d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delmarva Power & Light Company........... 20 5,000
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp..... 15 28,985
Penn Fuel Gas, Inc....................... 20 1,500
Pennsylvania Gas & Water Company......... 20 39,515
Renaissance Energy, Inc.................. 15 15,000
Sun Company, Inc......................... 21 15,000
Union Pacific Fuels, Inc................. 15 10,000
------------------------------
Total................................ ......... 115,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the Commission's Statement of Policy and after the
facilities necessary to serve the market for the Project had generally
been determined, Transco states that it solicited permanent capacity
relinquishment offers to be effective on November 1, 1997 from existing
shippers not submitting open season nominations to reduce the costs of
the SeaBoard Expansion Project, to prevent the construction of
unnecessary facilities, and to make use of unwanted firm capacity on
the Transco system. Transco states that it received permanent capacity
release offers from The Brooklyn Union Gas Company and Williams Energy
Services Company (WESCO). Transco further states that it determined
that the capacity offered in these release offers would not reduce the
facilities required to provide firm service to the SeaBoard shippers.
In addition, it is stated that the release capacity offered by WESCO
was located outside the capacity path of the Project. Transco avers
that it also received conditional capacity release offers from Public
Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) and UGI Utilities, Inc. (UGI)
which were expressly contingent upon those shippers receiving an
equivalent amount of firm transportation service in the SeaBoard
Expansion Project. It is stated that the conditional nature of the
capacity release offers was contrary to the Commission's Statement of
Policy and to the purpose for which Transco solicited these offers
which was to make use of unwanted firm transportation capacity on the
system. Transco states that PSE&G and UGI were given the opportunity of
either participating in the SeaBoard Expansion Project or offering
permanently released capacity on an unconditional basis; however, both
PSE&G and UGI declined.
In order to create the 115,000 Mcf/d of capacity to provide firm
transportation service to the SeaBoard shippers, Transco proposes to
construct and operate the following facilities:
(1) 10.57 miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline loop beginning at
milepost 161.29 in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania and ending at milepost
171.86 in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.
(2) 6.67 miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline loop beginning at
milepost 142.74 in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania and ending at milepost
149.41 in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
(3) 5.46 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline loop beginning at
milepost 1802.73 in Middlesex County, New Jersey and ending at milepost
1808.19 in Union County, New Jersey.
(4) 7.10 miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline loop beginning at
milepost 18.96 in Burlington County, New Jersey and ending at milepost
26.06 in Burlington County, New Jersey.
(5) The replacement of an existing 6.3 miles of 12-inch diameter
pipeline loop beginning at milepost 30.53 and ending at milepost 36.83
in Burlington County, New Jersey, with a 36-inch diameter pipeline
loop. The 12-inch pipeline segment will be removed and the 36-inch
replacement pipeline will be installed in the same trench.
(6) The addition of a new 15,000 hp, electric motor-driven
compressor unit at Transco's existing Compressor Station 205 located at
milepost 1773.30 in Mercer County, New Jersey.
(7) Modifications to the existing Milltown regulator station
located at milepost 1790.84 in Middlesex, New Jersey, to increase the
discharge
[[Page 29092]]
pressure into Transco's mainline E to 800 psig.
(8) Modifications to the existing Linden regulator station located
at milepost 1808.19 in Union County, New Jersey, to reduce the pressure
in Transco's 42-inch Mainline E from 800 psig to 638 psig.
(9) Addition of a 12-inch tap on Transco's existing Mainline A at
milepost 1711.67 in Chester County, Pennsylvania to tie-in to an
existing Transco 16-inch lateral.
(10) Installation of a pressure control valve and related piping,
and a 290 hp nameplate uprating of six existing reciprocating engines
(for a total nameplate uprating of 1,740 hp) at Transco's existing
Compressor Station 200 located at milepost 1722.24 in Chester County,
Pennsylvania.
Transco estimates that the proposed facilities will cost $117.7
million. Transco requests that the Commission grant rolled-in rate
treatment of the costs of the SeaBoard facilities in Transco's next
Section 4 rate proceeding which becomes effective following the in-
service date of the Project. It is stated that the rate impact on
existing customers of rolling in the costs of the SeaBoard Expansion
Project is below the five percent threshold specified in the
Commission's Statement of Policy, 71 FERC para. 61,241 (1995), for
establishing a presumption in favor of rolled-in rates and the Project
will produce significant system-wide operational and financial benefits
and will be operated on an integrated basis with its existing
facilities.
To meet the proposed in-service date for the SeaBoard Expansion
Project, Transco requests that the Commission issue a preliminary
determination approving all aspects of the application other than
environmental matters by November 1, 1996, with a final determination
and all appropriate certificate authorizations by January 24, 1997.
Comment date: June 21, 1996, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
F at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
F. Any person desiring to be heard or make any protest with
reference to said filing should on or before the comment date file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
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 385.211 and 385.214) 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 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 filing 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 is 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 the 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. 96-14347 Filed 6-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P