[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30896-30897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14437]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-376-000]


Intermountain Municipal Gas Agency and Questar Gas Company; 
Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

June 4, 2001.
    On May 25, 2001, the Intermountain Municipal Gas Agency (IMGA) \1\ 
and Questar Gas Company (Questar Gas), formerly Mountain Fuel Supply 
Company, filed a joint petition for a declaratory order by the 
Commission addressing jurisdictional issues raised by an agreement 
under which Questar Gas is to undertake natural gas transportation 
services for municipalities in Utah and Arizona for operation of their 
retain natural gas utilities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ IMGA is a group of Utah municipalities organized pursuant to 
the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11 Chapter 13 of the Utah 
Code, which allows Utah municipalities to organize a cooperative 
legal entity having the same powers as a municipality including 
those given by the statute.
    \2\ Although the municipalities presently have requested only 
transportation service, Questar Gas believes the same issues will 
arise if it is requested in the future to make sales of natural gas 
for resale by the municipalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questar Gas has agreed to provide transportation service to 
municipalities in Utah pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by 
the Public Service Commission of Utah (Utah PSC). The petitioners' 
joint filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Questar Gas' northern Utah distribution system, which is a 
designated service area pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act 
(NGA),\3\ includes Questar Gas' southern Idaho and northern Utah 
distribution facilities. Questar Gas' southern distribution system 
operates as an exempt Hinshaw system pursuant to NGA section 1(c). 
Questar Gas' northern

[[Page 30897]]

and southern distribution systems are not interconnected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 82 FERC para.16,057 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acting at the direction of member municipalities, including 
Hildale, Utah, Colorado City, Arizona, Kanab, Utah, and Fredonia, 
Arizona, IMGA has requested that Questar Gas deliver interstate gas 
supplies from its interconnections with interstate pipelines to the 
interconnection between Questar Gas' southern system feeder line and 
Hildale's municipal pipeline at the City of Hurricane, Utah. From that 
point, the gas supplies would then be transported by IMGA through 
Hildale's 22-mile municipal pipeline to Hildale, Utah. Some of the gas 
would then be delivered to a planned municipal pipeline that would 
cross the Utah border into northern Arizona and then back into Utah, 
terminating at Kanab, Utah, to service only the residents of Kanab, 
Utah. In the alternative, a new municipal pipeline could be jointly 
built to serve not only Kanab, Utah, but also Colorado City, Arizona, 
and Fredonia, Arizona. The Kaibab Paiute Indian tribe in Arizona may 
also participate.\4\ Each city would connect to the pipeline and 
distribute and sell the gas through a municipal utility to their 
respective residential, commercial and industrial end-users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The petition notes that Indian tribes are identified as 
entities that can participate in intergovernmental agreements with 
municipalities under Arizona law A.R.S. 11-951 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a recent proceeding before the Utah PSC, Hildale and IMGA 
requested that the Utah PSC order Questar Gas to provide wholesale 
transportation service for Hildale and similarly situated Utah 
municipalities. Under the terms of a stipulation resulting in an 
approved settlement in that proceeding, Questar Gas has agreed to 
provide such wholesale transportation service, provided it does not 
jeopardize Questar Gas' NGA section 1(c) Hinshaw exemption.
    Accordingly, the petition seeks a declaratory order addressing 
Questar Gas' concerns regarding the jurisdictional consequences of 
providing transportation service directly to Kanab, Utah, where the 
pipeline serving Kanab crosses into Arizona before reentering Utah, and 
to municipalities, like Colorado City and Fredonia, Arizona, located 
outside of Utah. Questar Gas requests that the Commission address the 
jurisdictional implications of such transportation services on 
Questar's existing NGA section 1(c) Hinshaw exemption for its southern 
distribution system and Questar Gas' ability to seek in the future a 
service area determination for this system under NGA section 7(f).
    The petition seeks clarification regarding whether Questar Gas 
would need NGA certificate authority, such as a blanket transportation 
certificate issued pursuant to section 284.224 of the Commission's 
regulations (18 CFR 284.224), to render wholesale transportation 
service or to construct facilities for transportation of gas to 
municipal utilities located within Questar Gas' existing designated NGA 
section 7(f) service area or any such service area designated for 
Questar Gas in the future. In addition, the petition raises the issue 
of whether Questar Gas would lose its Hinshaw exemption by providing 
wholesale transportation service, constructing facilities for such 
service, or connecting its northern section 7(f) system to its southern 
Hinshaw system so that gas could flow from one to the other.
    IMGA requests clarification of the rate implications for Utah 
municipalities presently receiving wholesale transportation from 
Questar Gas, as a Hinshaw pipeline, if Questar Gas accepts a section 
284.224 blanket transportation certificate to authorize Questar Gas' 
transportation of gas that ultimately would be distributed by municipal 
utilities in non-Utah cities.
    The petition also raises the issue of whether Questar Gas may 
elect, pursuant to the Commission's regulations governing service under 
a section 284.224 blanket certificate, to charge the Utah PSC's 
currently approved rate for Questar Gas' existing Hinshaw 
transportation services for municipal utilities in Utah as Questar Gas' 
rate for transportation service for Arizona municipalities.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of 
this petition. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by 
becoming a party to the proceeding should, on or before June 25, 2001, 
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene 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).
    A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list 
maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies 
of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A 
party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and 
must mail a copy to the applicants and to every other party in the 
proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of 
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have 
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with 
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and 
two copies of the comments in support of or in opposition to matters 
raised in the petition. The Commission will consider these comments in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a 
comment will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The 
Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition 
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly 
involved in the protest.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www/ferc/fed/
us/efi/doorbell/htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14437 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M