[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 165 (Thursday, August 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 51601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21598]



[[Page 51601]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-212-002]


NUI Corporation (City Gas Company of Florida Division) v. Florida 
Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Compliance Filing

August 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on August 14, 2000, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (``FGT'') tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 (``Tariff'') effective August 25, 
2000, the following tariff sheets:

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 186
Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 187

    FGT states that on March 8, 2000, NUI Corporation (City Gas Company 
of Florida Division) (NUI) filed a complaint contending that FGT 
violated applicable Commission policy, as well as FGT's tariff, by not 
permitting NUI to reduce its contract demand selectively by season in 
matching a bid submitted under FGT's Right-of-First-Refusal (``ROFR'') 
procedures. Subsequently, on July 14, 2000, the Commission issued an 
order in the referenced docket (``July 14 Order'') requiring FGT to 
clarify shippers' rights to uniformly reduce contract demand when 
exercising their ROFR rights. In compliance with the Commission's July 
14 Order, on July 27, 2000, FGT filed tariff sheets (``July 27 
Filing'') adding tariff language allowing shippers exercising ROFR 
rights to reduce contract demand by either a uniform percentage 
reduction for each season or by the same absolute volume amount in each 
season.
    In response to FGT's filing, several shippers protested FGT's 
inclusion in proposed tariff language the phrase ``that does not 
require its entire contract quantities to serve its core customers.'' 
The protesting shippers stated that the phase was ambiguous, limited 
the rights of certain shippers to reduce their contract quantities and 
was beyond the scope of the Commission's Order. FGT states that it did 
not intend to limit the rights of shippers in the ROFR process in any 
way, but included this phrase as a result of the issues raised in the 
NUI complaint proceeding. However, after reviewing the protests, FGT 
states that it agrees that the language could be interpreted as 
limiting ROFR rights. In the instant filing, FGT states that it is 
refiling tariff language to comply with the Commission's July 14 Order, 
but without the language that has been interpreted as limiting 
shipper's rights of reduction in the ROFR process.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-21598 Filed 8-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M