[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15560-15562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP02-116-000 and CP02-117-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Applications

March 27, 2002.
    Take notice that on March 18, 2002, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee), Nine E. Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in 
Docket Nos. CP02-116-000 and CP02-117-000 applications pursuant to 
section 7(c) and section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 
and 153 of the Commission's regulations for: a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of 
certain pipeline facilities, referred to as the South Texas Expansion 
Project, and Section 3 authorization pursuant NGA and a Presidential 
Permit pursuant to

[[Page 15561]]

Executive Order No. 10485, as amended by Executive Order No. 12038, to 
site, construct, operate, connect, and maintain facilities at the 
International Boundary between the United States and Mexico for the 
import and export of up to 320,000 Dth/d of natural gas between 
Hidalgo, County, Texas and the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, all as more 
fully set forth in the application. 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, Tennessee proposes to construct, in Hidalgo County, 
Texas, a 9.28-mile, 30-inch diameter lateral (Rio Bravo Lateral) from 
Tennessee's Pipeline No. 409A-100 (Donna Line) to the border crossing. 
A measurement facility will be constructed at the intersection of the 
Rio Bravo Lateral and the border crossing facilities. In addition, 
Tennessee proposes to construct, all in Hidalgo County, 7.58 miles of 
24-inch pipeline loop adjacent to the existing Donna Line, and a new 
compressor station consisting of 9,470 horsepower near the town of 
Edinburg. The project also includes modifications of Tennessee's 
existing Compressor Station 1, in Nueces County, Texas, and Station 9 
in Victoria County, Texas to accommodate bi-directional flow through 
the stations. The proposed border crossing facilities consist of 1000 
feet of 30-inch pipeline extending from the Rio Bravo Lateral to the 
midpoint of the Rio Grande River for interconnection with Gasoducto del 
Rio's facilities. The total estimated cost of the proposed project is 
estimated to be $39.8 million. Tennessee requests authorization no 
later than December 23, 2002.
    Tennessee states that natural gas is required to fuel four electric 
power generation plants located in the Northern Mexico Municipalities 
of Rio Bravo and Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas. Two of the plants are 
currently receiving service from Pemex Gas y Petroquimica Basica, but, 
Tennessee states that its project will be the only source of gas supply 
for the other two plants, one scheduled to be ready for commercial 
operation on April 1, 2004, and the last on April 1, 2005.
    Tennessee states that it has executed binding, 15-year precedent 
agreements with MGI Supply, Ltd. For 130,000 Dth/d beginning June 1, 
2003, El Paso Merchant Energy, LP for 95,000 Dth/d beginning April 1, 
2004, and EDF International for 95,000 Dth/d beginning April 1, 2005. 
The shippers elected to pay negotiated rates consisting of a 
reservation charge of $0.0975 per Dth/d, fixed for the primary term of 
the agreement, and a commodity rate ranging from $0.005 to $0.050 per 
Dth, depending on the receipt and delivery points and the year in the 
life of the contract. The negotiated rates include all applicable 
surcharges and fuel and loss percentages. The recourse rate is the 
maximum applicable rate under Tennessee's Rate Schedule FT-A. Tennessee 
states that it is not seeking a predetermination in favor of rolled-in 
rate treatment, but believes that rolled-in rate treatment is 
appropriate because revenues will exceed the incremental cost of 
service in all but the first year of service.
    Tennessee notes several differences between the project's 
transportation agreements and Tennessee's pro forma FT-A transportation 
agreement having to do with contemplating the construction of necessary 
facilities, the commencement date for service, the need for necessary 
authorizations, and the superceding and cancellation of the precedent 
agreements. In addition, Article XV of the MGI Supply Ltd. 
transportation agreement contains differing provisions concerning 
choice of law requiring that any dispute which cannot be resolved 
informally and which is not subject to the Commission's exclusive 
jurisdiction must be submitted to and resolved by binding arbitration. 
Tennessee submits that these differences do not constitute material 
deviations and that the project transportation agreements are not non-
conforming agreements. If, however, the Commission finds otherwise, 
Tennessee requests that the Commission pre-approve the project 
transportation agreements.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to 
Marguerite Woung-Chapman, General Counsel., Tennessee Pipeline Company, 
Nine E. Greenway Plaza, Suite 740, Houston, Texas 77046, call (832) 
676-7329, fax (832) 676-1733.
    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 April 17, 2002, 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.
    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

[[Page 15562]]

final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be 
issued.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-7889 Filed 3-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P