[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9474]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 20, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP94-329-000, et al.]
El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate
Filings
April 12, 1994.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. El Paso Natural Gas Co.
[Docket No. CP94-329-000]
Take notice that on April 1, 1994, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El
Paso), Post Office Box 1492, El Paso, Texas 79978, filed an application
at Docket No. CP94-329-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing El Paso to construct and operate its North/South Transfer
Project. El Paso also requests a determination that the costs for the
North/South Transfer Project would be rolled into El Paso's cost-of-
service as a part of the first system-wide general rate proceeding
following the in-service date of the proposed facilities, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection.
El Paso requests expeditious authorization of the North/South
Transfer Project since it has been designed to enhance El Paso's system
operating flexibility and to contribute directly to maximum system
utilization, by providing enhanced multi-directional flow operations.
El Paso states that construction of the North/South Transfer Project
would therefore facilitate El Paso's ability to react quickly to
changing market requirements on both the demand and supply sides on its
system.
El Paso states that while its system has always had to respond to
changing markets prior to open-access, El Paso could optimize the
sequencing of supplies to maximize system efficiency. El Paso states
that it controls neither the market nor the supply and must stand ready
to handle a wide variety of combinations of supply and demand. El Paso
further states that during the last five years, the California market
has been evolving in a new direction which has resulted in fundamental
changes in the demand patterns on El Paso's transmission system. El
Paso states that the day-to-day changes in system loading has created a
need for additional system flexibility.
El Paso also states that the market changes are caused, in part, by
several events. First, the demand for gas deliveries at the Topock
Delivery Point by El Paso's California customers has decreased as a
result of the expansion of Pacific Gas Transmission Company's system to
move Canadian gas supplies into northern California, the capacity
available through the Kern River Gas Transmission Company system, and
the capacity available from the Transwestern Pipeline Company
(Transwestern) system at Topock (referred to as Needles by
Transwestern). El Paso states that if prices for gas in the southwest
are high, the California market shifts to the Canadian supplies. This
decrease in demand at Topock imposes an external constraint on El
Paso's North System which results in capacity allocations in the San
Juan Basin supply area. Second, El Paso states that the continuing
buildup of supply in the San Juan Basin has made that area's gas
production a more economically attractive supply source for El Paso's
customers served by the South System. Third, El Paso states that
producers in the Permian and Anadarko Basins have found markets within
Texas and to the east, unloading El Paso's system. Of El Paso's supply
sources, the supplies in the Permian and Anadarko Basins are closest to
the eastern markets and can easily swing off El Paso's system in very
short notice. El Paso states that the California market changes, the
ability for producers in all supply basins to swing off El Paso's
system on a day-to-day basis, and El Paso's need for system flexibility
to quickly respond to the day-to-day market and supply changes support
the need to transfer gas between the two systems and collectively
constitutes the driving forces behind the North/South Transfer Project.
El Paso further states that given these developments in the market
and their direct impact on El Paso's system, El Paso has recognized
that its existing system can better serve the market if modified to
facilitate operation in a multi-directional manner. El Paso proposes to
construct and operate approximately 98.4 miles of 30-inch pipeline
(``North/South Transfer Line''), with appurtenances, to parallel the
existing 30-inch Havasu Crossover Line and proposes to modify the
operation of the existing Dutch Flat Compressor Station, all located
near the western end of El Paso's North and South Systems. El Paso
states that the approximate cost of construction of the North/South
Transfer Project is $62,364,000, with a resultant third year cost of
service of only approximately $10.4 million.
El Paso states that its proposal would provide El Paso with the
capability to transfer an additional 468.6 Mmcf per day of natural gas
from El Paso's North System to its South System. El Paso further states
that the construction of these facilities, together with the operation
of the existing system in a multi-directional manner would permit El
Paso to enhance system flexibility, maximize system utilization, and
thereby more quickly respond to ever-changing market and supply
conditions. El Paso also states that firm delivery capacity would not
be increased by the facilities.
El Paso also requests a determination from the Commission granting
El Paso approval to roll-in the costs associated with the North/South
Transfer Project into its total cost of service. El Paso states that
when the facilities are placed in-service, El Paso would charge its
then current and effective Part 284 rates. El Paso further states that
it would roll-in the cost associated with the North/South Transfer
Project in the first system-wide general rate proceeding initiated
following the in-service date of the North/South Transfer Project.
El Paso asserts that the proposed North/South Transfer Project
benefits producers, end-users, and shippers utilizing El Paso's system.
El Paso further asserts that producers in any basin would be able to
get their gas more reliably to markets served by El Paso's system and
would be less likely to be subject to capacity allocations and shut-
ins. Shippers will also have more flexibility in moving gas to their
new markets and greater certainty of supply sources. El Paso states
that as a result of these circumstances, end-users would benefit from a
further increase in reliability of gas supplies and deliveries.
Comment date: May 3, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph F
at the end of this notice.
2. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
[Docket No. CP94-332-000]
Take notice that on April 4, 1994, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West
Virginia 25314, filed in Docket No. CP94-332-000 a petition for
declaratory order requesting that the Commission clarify whether
certain construction falls within the provisions of Sec. 2.55(b) of the
Commission's General Policy and Interpretations for replacement of
facilities, all as more fully set forth in the petition which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Columbia states that the past practice of ``telescoping'' pipelines
in storage fields, the sizing of pipelines in proportion to the gas
flow, now impairs Columbia's ability to effectively clean and inspect
these facilities. Columbia further asserts that it has experienced
failures in its storage pipeline system due to external and internal
corrosion of the facilities.
Columbia states that, in order to correct the corrosion problem, it
has initiated a program to install permanent launching and receiving
facilities in parts of its existing storage field pipeline system.
Columbia further states that in certain storage fields it would be
necessary to replace short segments of the telescoped pipeline to
provide for a uniform pipe size between launcher and receiver
locations. Columbia asserts that uniform pipe size would eliminate the
need for multiple launcher and receiver locations thereby enabling the
pigging system to be more effective.
Columbia states that it believes that this replacement construction
constitutes the replacement of facilities as envisioned by Sec. 2.55(b)
of the Commission's General Policy and Interpretations. Columbia
asserts that the ``a substantially equivalent designed delivery
capacity as the facilities being replaced'' criteria in Sec. 2.55(b) is
not accompanied by further definition that would indicate how the
Commission would interpret the phrase. Columbia further asserts that
its review of relevant Commission decisions did not clarify the phrase
with sufficient precision to eliminate the need to seek NGA section
7(c) certificate authorization. Columbia states that it has filed for
authorization to construct these type of facilities at the Medina
Storage Field in Docket No. CP94-252-000 and at the Weaver Storage
Field in Docket No. CP94-320-000.
Columbia requests that the Commission issue a declaratory order
clarifying that Sec. 2.55(b) of the Commission's General Policy and
Interpretations may be interpreted to include the replacement of
facilities of the type described above and described in more detail in
the referenced applications filed by Columbia in regard to the Medina
and Weaver Storage Fields.
Comment date: May 3, 1994, in accordance with the first paragraph
of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
3. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
[Docket No. CP94-348-000]
Take notice that on April 11, 1994, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation (TGPL), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, filed in
Docket No. CP94-348-000, a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18
CFR 157.205 and 157.212) for authorization to operate an existing
delivery tap to Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont) on TGPL's
Maiden Lateral in Lincoln County, North Carolina under the blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-426-000, pursuant to section 7(c)
of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
TGPL proposes to operate an existing 4-inch delivery tap, located
at milepost 0.18 on TGPL's Maiden Lateral in Lincoln County, North
Carolina, which will be used by Piedmont to receive up to 750 Mcf of
gas per day into its distribution system on a firm and interruptible
basis. TGPL asserts it will not alter the authorized firm
transportation service entitlement for Piedmont. TGPL states it has
sufficient system delivery flexibility to accomplish these deliveries
without any detriment to its other customers. TGPL indicates that the
operation of this delivery point is not prohibited by its FERC Gas
Tariff.
TGPL states that the facilities necessary to make this tap
operational will consist of tie-in piping between the existing tap and
Piedmont's facilities. TGPL further states that this tie-in piping will
be constructed pursuant to Sec. 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations
and will cost an estimated $10,000.
Comment date: May 27, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph G
at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
F. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with
reference to said application should on or before the comment date,
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20426, a motion to intervene or a protest 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). All protests filed with the Commission will be
considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but
will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a
party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter
finds that a grant of the certificate and/or permission and approval
for the proposed abandonment are required by the public convenience and
necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if
the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is
required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised,
it will be unnecessary for applicant to appear or be represented at the
hearing.
G. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-9474 Filed 4-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
