[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10009-10010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. SA98-3-000, SA98-4-000 and SA98-5-000]


Edgar W. White; Notice of Petitions for Adjustment

February 23, 1998.
    Take notice that on February 18, 1998, Edgar W. White (White), 
filed petitions for adjustment under Section 502(c) of the Natural Gas 
Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA),\1\ in Docket Nos. SA98-3-000, SA98-4-000, 
and SA98-5-000. In his petitions, White requests: (1) To be relieved of 
his obligation to make Kansas ad valorem tax refunds to three 
interstate pipeline companies, with respect to his interest in various 
wells; (2) to be relieved of the obligation, as operator, to make such 
refunds for the other interest owners in those wells, otherwise 
required by the Commission's September 10, 1997, order in Docket Nos. 
GP97-3-000, GP97-4-000, GP97-5-000, and RP97-369-000; \2\ and (3) if 
this relief is not granted, that he be authorized to amortize the 
refund obligations. White's petitions are on file with the Commission 
and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(c) (1982).
    \2\ See 80 FERC para. 61,264 (1997); order denying reh'g issued 
January 28, 1998, 82 FERC para. 61,058 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's September 10, order on remand from the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals \3\ directed first sellers under the NGPA to 
make Kansas ad valorem tax refunds, with interest, for the period from 
1983 to 1988. The Commission's September 10, order also provided that 
first sellers could, with

[[Page 10010]]

the Commission's prior approval, amortize their Kansas ad valorem tax 
refunds over a 5-year period, although interest would continue to 
accrue on any outstanding balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Public Service Company of Colorado v. FERC, 91 F.3d 1478 
(D.C. 1996), cert. denied, Nos. 96-954 and 96-1230 (65 U.S.L.W. 3751 
and 3754, May 12, 1997) (Public Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Docket No. SA98-3-000]

    In this petition, White asserts that requiring him to make the 
refunds sought by Williams Gas Pipeline Central, Inc. [formerly: 
Williams Natural Gas Company] (Williams) would constitute the taking of 
property without due process.
    White's SA98-3-000 petition pertains to one well in Morton County, 
Kansas. White became the operator of the well and bought a single lease 
in the gas unit, which gave White approximately a 10 percent interest 
in the well. White asserts that leases in this gas unit should have the 
same 6-year statute of limitations for the retention of records as 
Federal leases do under U.S. Code 30 Section 1713. Noting that Kansas 
law imposes a 5-year statute of limitations on any contract in writing, 
White also suggests that there should be a statute of limitations on 
the refunds sought by Williams, and that the time period should have 
run out by now. White further asserts that the doctrine of ``Laches'' 
should apply, i.e., that ``after an unreasonable period of time 
elapses, no action can be brought.'' White also claims that there is no 
way he can collect a refund from certain deceases prior owners, or 
their heirs.

[Docket No. SA98-4-000]

    In this petition, White asserts that requiring him to make the 
refunds sought by Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) would 
constitute the taking of property without due process.
    White's SA98-4-000 petition pertains to six wells in Morton County, 
Kansas. White became the operator of these wells, and states that he 
bought-out one of the other three original owners, which gave White a 
66 percent interest in these six wells. White adds that, although he 
initially made distributions to an unspecified number of royalty 
owners, the mineral rights reverted to the United States Government in 
1987. White states that since that time, he has been making royalty 
payments to the Minerals Management Service, in Denver, Colorado, and 
that he has lost all contact with the former owners. White claims that 
there is no way he can collect a refund from prior owners, that he has 
nothing to withhold from, and that he does not know the whereabouts of 
the prior owners. White also asserts that the 6-year statute of 
limitations for retaining records under U.S. Code 30 Section 1713 
should apply to these wells, since all of the leasehold have been 
entirely Federal since 1987. Noting the aforementioned 5-year, Kansas 
statute of limitations on written contracts, White asserts that there 
should be a statute of limitations on the refunds sought by CIG, and 
that the doctrine of Laches should apply to these refunds.

[Docket No. SA98-5-000]

    In this petition, White asserts that requiring him to make the 
refunds sought by Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) would 
constitute the taking of property without due process.
    White's SA98-5-000 petition pertains to four wells in Morton 
County, Kansas. White became the operator of these wells, and states 
that he holds a 50 percent interest in the four wells. White asserts 
that these leases should have the same 6-year statute of limitations on 
the retention of records as Federal leases do under U.S. Code 30 
Section 1713. White adds that the royalty ownership of the Schweizer 
No. 3 well reverted to the United States Government in 1987, that he 
has been making payments to the Minerals Management Service, in Denver, 
Colorado, since that time, and that he has had no contact with the 
prior minerals owners since May of 1987. White asserts that there is no 
way he can collect a refund from the prior owners. White also claims 
that there is no way he can collect a refund from certain deceased 
prior owners, or their heirs. Noting the aforementioned 5-year, Kansas 
statute of limitations on written contracts, White asserts that there 
should be a statute of limitations on the refunds sought by Panhandle, 
and that the doctrine of Laches should apply to these refunds.
    In view of the above, White requests to be relieved of: (1) His 
obligation to make Kansas ad valorem tax refunds to Williams, CIG and 
Panhandle, with respect to this interest the subject wells; and (2) the 
obligation, as operator, to make such refunds for the other interest 
owners, on the basis that paying the refunds would cause him a special 
hardship, that requiring him to make all of the refunds is inequitable, 
and that requiring him to make all of the refunds unfairly distributes 
the refund burden. In the alternative, if the Commission will not grant 
the relief requested, White requests that he be authorized to amortize 
the refund obligations.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to any of these petitions should on or before 15 days after 
the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice, 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 384.214, 
385.211, 385.1105, and 385.1106). 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 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.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-5029 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M