[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42646-42647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20330]



[[Page 42646]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-422-000]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application

August 8, 2001.
    Take notice that on August 1, 2001, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company (Kern River), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158, 
filed in Docket No. CP01-422-000 an abbreviated application pursuant to 
Section 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157A of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, for: 
(1) A certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Kern 
River to construct and operate the additional facilities needed to 
expand its transportation capacity from Opal, Wyoming to delivery 
points primarily in California by an additional 885,626 Mcf per day in 
order to provide up to approximately 906,626 Dth per day of long-term, 
incremental firm, year round transportation service commencing May 1, 
2003 (2003 Expansion); (2) permission and approval to abandon certain 
facilities that will be replaced by the proposed expansion facilities; 
(3) approval of levelized, incremental 10-year and 15-year term 
transportation rates for the 2003 Expansion, associated incremental 
compressor fuel factors and surcharges, and related tariff sheets; and 
(4) approval of regulatory asset/liability accounting for differences 
between book and regulatory depreciation resulting from the proposed 
levelized rate design and approval of Kern River's proposed accounting 
treatment for a contribution in aid of construction (``CIAC'') integral 
to the 2003 Expansion design, all as more fully set forth in the 
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' link, select 
``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).
    Specifically, Kern River states that it proposes to construct and 
operate:
    (1) Approximately 634.3 miles of 36-inch pipeline to loop Kern 
River's existing Opal Lateral in Wyoming and about 92% of Kern River's 
existing mainline (in 11 loops) from Wyoming, through Utah and Nevada, 
to California;
    (2) Approximately 82.4 miles of 42-inch pipeline to loop part of 
the existing mainline that Kern River jointly owns with Mojave Pipeline 
Company (Mojave) in California;
    (3) Three new mainline compressor stations--the Coyote Creek 
Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; the Salt Lake Compressor 
Station in Salt Lake County, Utah; and the Dry Lake Compressor Station 
in Clark County, Nevada;
    (4) Turbine-driven compressor unit additions, upgrades and/or 
modifications at four existing compressor stations--the Muddy Creek 
Compressor Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming; the Fillmore Compressor 
Station in Millard County, Utah; the Veyo Compressor Station in 
Washington County, Utah; and the Goodsprings Compressor Station in 
Clark County, Nevada;
    (5) Replacement of the turbine-driven compressor units at the 
existing Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah;
    (6) Reconfiguration of the existing Daggett Compressor Station to 
compress only Mojave volumes, with a consequent derating of the 
electric motor-driven compressor unit;
    (7) An approximate 0.8 mile extension of the existing 12-inch 
Anschutz Lateral to establish an additional mainline tie-in point on 
the suction side of the proposed Coyote Creek Compressor Station;
    (8) Upgrades and modifications of five meter stations--the Opal 
Meter Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming; the PG&E-Daggett and Daggett 
Meter Stations in San Bernardino County, California; and the Wheeler 
Ridge and Kern Front Meter Stations in Kern County, California; and
    (9) Various mainline block valves, launcher/receiver facilities and 
other appurtenances.
    Kern River states that the proposed compression additions, 
upgrades, replacements and modifications will add a net total of 
163,700 (ISO rated) horsepower to the Kern River system and that the 
additional compression and pipeline loops will more than double Kern 
River's existing summer day design capacity, increasing it from 845,500 
Mcf per day (upon completion of the amended 2002 Kern River Expansion 
Project approved in Docket No. CP01-31-001) to approximately 1,731,126 
Mcf per day.
    Kern River states that the estimated total cost of the proposed 
2003 Expansion facilities, including a proposed $6.25 million CIAC, is 
approximately $1.26 billion and that for incremental rate design 
purposes, the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project is allocated 
approximately $12 million of costs attributable to the 21,000 Mcf per 
day of California Action Project and 2002 Kern River Expansion Project 
capacity that is incorporated into the design of the 2003 Expansion 
upon expiration of the short-term California Action Project service 
authorized in Docket No. CP01-106-000.
    According to Kern River, the proposed initial daily incremental 
transportation rates for the 2003 Expansion, on a 100% load factor 
basis and exclusive of fuel, are $0.6997 per Dth for 10-year firm 
service and $0.5675 per Dth for 15-year firm service. Kern River states 
that in each case, the rate is comprised of a $0.0573 volumetric charge 
and a reservation charge for the remainder.
    In addition, Kern River states that the 2003 Expansion shippers 
will be responsible for providing reimbursement of the incremental 
mainline compressor fuel, both gas and electric, attributable to the 
expansion. According to Kern River, the proposed initial incremental 
gas fuel in-kind reimbursement factors by compressor station aggregate 
to 3.05% for receipts for transportation from Opal to California, with 
lower aggregate rates for shorter transportation paths. Kern River 
states that the initial incremental electric fuel surcharge for 2003 
Expansion deliveries to points downstream of Daggett is proposed to be 
$0.0042 per Dth.
    Kern River states that it has executed eighteen long-term 
transportation service agreements under Rate Schedule KRF-1 with 
seventeen shippers, for a total of 902,626 Dth per day of expansion 
capacity from Opal, Wyoming to delivery points primarily in California, 
commencing May 1, 2003. According to Kern River, approximately 85% of 
the capacity is contracted for 15 years and the remainder for 10 
years--over 95% of the capacity has primary delivery points in 
California, with the flexibility to access secondary delivery points 
upstream in Nevada and Utah. Kern River states that based upon 
representations made by the expansion shippers, nearly all of the 
capacity is projected to be used to serve existing and new power 
generation markets in California and Nevada.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Gary 
Kotter, Manager, Certificates, Kern River Gas Transmission Company, 
P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900, at (801) 584-7117 or 
fax (801) 584-7764.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of 
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by 
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or 
before August 29, 2001,

[[Page 42647]]

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 NGA (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 applicant 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 comments in support of or in opposition to this project. 
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will 
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's 
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project 
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly 
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of 
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments 
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be 
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive 
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings 
associated with the Commission's environmental review process. 
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed 
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will 
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by 
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents 
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court 
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-
environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the 
environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination 
typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its 
economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other 
pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, 
the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to 
exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed 
project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be 
provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on 
community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important 
either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as 
possible.
    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 under the ``e-Filing'' 
link.
    If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal 
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue 
another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's 
review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a 
certificate will be issued.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-20330 Filed 8-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P