[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79588-79589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP03-29-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Application

December 23, 2002.
    Take notice that on December 17, 2002, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia), 12801 Fair Lakes Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia 
22030-0146, filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of 
the Natural gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's regulations, 
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a limited 
blanket certificate to perform certain specific activities at its 
Victory storage field in Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia, 
all as more fully set forth in the application on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for 
review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``FERRIS'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support 
at [email protected] or toll-free at (866)208-3676, or for 
TTY, contact (202)502-8659.
    Columbia states that on September 18, 2002, Consolidated Coal 
Company and McElroy Coal Company (collectively referred to as McElroy) 
and Columbia executed a settlement agreement relating to the continued 
operation of the victory storage field in tandem with coal mining 
operations. It is stated that the settlement agreement is structured to 
allow McElroy continuous access for its coal mining operation while 
ensuring a preservation of current storage field deliverability, in a 
cost effective manner, for Columbia and its customers. In addition, it 
is stated that as a result of the sequential drill-and-plug approach 
adopted by the parties for maintaining deliverability, mining 
activities through Victory should progress more safely.
    Columbia states that once mining within the Victory storage field 
commences, it will frequently be required to act within time frames 
that do not permit seeking advance Commission authorization each time 
an active injection/withdrawal well must be plugged to accommodate 
mining, or a replacement injection/withdrawal well must be drilled to 
preserve existing deliverability. In order to avoid the need for 
repeatedly seeking expedited decisions on matters requiring NGA section 
7 authority, Columbia requests a limited blanket certificate for 
authorization to drill replacement injection/withdrawal wells, and 
abandon existing injection/withdrawal wells, and a flexible time frame 
for meeting the normal environmental reporting requirements associated 
with such activities.
    Columbia maintains that the settlement agreement with McElroy 
insulates Columbia and its customers from the costs associated with 
abandoning existing injection/withdrawal or observation wells and 
drilling replacement injection/withdrawal or observation wells. 
Columbia avers that its customers will incur no significant costs in 
conjunction with replacing existing wells and ancillary equipment with 
replacement wells and equipment while preserving existing capacity and 
deliverability from the Victory storage field. Columbia states that it 
would seek rolled-in rate treatment for the minor non-reimbursed costs 
which will be incurred with respect to well abandonment and replacement 
activities in Victory. Columbia states that McElroy would pay for up to 
750 feet of well line to connect each replacement well and Columbia 
would pay for any footage of well line over 750 feet. Columbia further 
states that for pipelines impacted by mining, Columbia would receive a 
reimbursement of 50 percent of the costs associated with mitigating 
impact on pipelines in Victory which are 12-inch or greater in diameter 
when such pipelines are schedule to be, or are, mined under during the 
months of December, January, February or March of any year while the 
settlement agreement is in effect. Under such a scenario, Columbia 
states that it would seek to roll-in to its rates the portion of 
pipeline costs not reimbursed by McElroy.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to 
counsel for Columbia, Fredric J. George, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273, at 
(304) 357-2359, fax (304) 357-3206.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of 
this project. First, any person wishing to

[[Page 79589]]

obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this 
project should, on or before the comment date stated below 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 in the 
proceeding. with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant 
and to every other party. 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.
    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. 
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    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.
    Comment Date: January 13, 2003.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-32874 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P