[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47183-47184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22408]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP99-600-000]


National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation; Notice of Petition 
for Declaratory Order

August 23, 1999.
    Take notice that on August 13, 1999, as supplemented on August 16, 
and August 19, 1999, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation 
(Distribution) 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203, filed in 
Docket No. CP99-600-000, a petition pursuant to Section 207 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207) for a 
declaratory order regarding the jurisdictional status and regulatory 
compliance of Norse Pipeline, LLC (Norse) and its affiliate, Nornew 
Energy Supply, Inc. (Nornew), all as more fully set forth in the 
application on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. 
This filing may be viewed on a web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm 
(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Distribution explains that the Commission previously found Norse to 
be a non-jurisdictional gathering company, but noted that certain 
changes in Norse's operations could alter that status. Columbia Gas 
Transmission Corporation, Norse Pipeline, LLC, 85 FERC 61,191 (1998), 
reh'g denied, 86 FERC 61,137 (1999). Distribution asserts that recent 
business transactions may have alerted Norse's status. Distribution 
believes that the public commitment of

[[Page 47184]]

 Nornew, Norse's affiliate, to provide service to the Jamestown Board 
of Public Utilities (JBPU) using newly constructed facilities and the 
Norse system appears to be interstate natural gas transportation 
service.
    Distribution contends that Norse was put on notice by the 
Commission that future flows of interstate gas onto its system would 
obviate Norse's non-jurisdictional status and require Norse to apply 
for Section 7 authorization. Nornew, its affiliate, has entered 
business commitments different from that described in the order, above. 
Because of Norse's gathering system status. Distribution says Norse 
appears to have entered into affiliated entity transactions that would 
strictly be prohibited for a jurisdictional pipeline. Distribution 
states that Norse's affiliate, Nornew is committing to construct a 
pipeline through which interstate gas will flow, which may require 
either certification under the NGA or state regulations as a 
``Hinshaw'' pipeline.
    Therefore, Distribution submits that Norse is offering to operate 
as an unregulated but jurisdictional interstate pipeline by providing 
transportation for a supplier (its affiliate, Nornew) to a newly-
connected power station and that such operation have placed 
Distribution at a significant disadvantage in the New York marketplace. 
Both Distribution and Nornew bid for the transportation contract for 
JBPU. Distribution says Nornew won by using Norse's transportation 
service.
    Distribution wants the Commission to answer the following 
questions:
    1. Would Norse's transportation to JBPU of interstate natural gas 
supplies delivered from an interstate pipeline (such as Tennessee at 
Mayville) trigger the requirement that Norse obtain a certificate under 
Section 7 of the NGA?
    2. Would Norse be required to obtain its Section 7 certificate 
before providing interstate service as contemplated under the JBPU 
service proposal?
    3. Would Nornew become an interstate natural gas pipeline by 
building and operating a pipeline that is engaged in the transportation 
of interstate natural gas supplies, as contemplated by the JBPU 
proposal? and,
    4. If Norse or Nornew were to become an interstate pipeline as a 
consequence of the JBPU transaction, would the Commission's regulations 
and standards applicable to interstate pipelines (including affiliated 
marketer restrictions) apply to contracts executed before the 
commencement of interstate service but which would require interstate 
transportation?
    Distribution wants the Commission to act quickly on these questions 
as it will guide all the parties in the development of service to the 
power plant. Distribution believes Norse and Nornew show no signs of 
complying with any NGA jurisdictional regulations and that there is a 
significant possibility that affiliate preferences are being granted in 
ways completely contrary to the policies of the Commission.
    Any questions regarding this petition may be directed to 
Christopher J. Barr, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1800 M Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-7142 or Alice A. Curtiss, Senior 
Regulatory Attorney, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, 10 
Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203 (716) 857-7951.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said petition should on or before September 13, 1999, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 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 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-22408 Filed 8-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M