97-10931. Connecticut Natural Gas Company, Yankee Gas Services Company, and The Southern Connecticut Gas Company V. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Complaint and Motion To Consolidate

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 23235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP97-333-000 & RP97-126-000 (Not Consolidated)]


Connecticut Natural Gas Company, Yankee Gas Services Company, and 
The Southern Connecticut Gas Company V. Iroquois Gas Transmission 
System, L.P. and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of 
Complaint and Motion To Consolidate

April 23, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 16, 1997, Connecticut Natural Gas 
Company, Yankee Gas Services Company, and The Southern Connecticut Gas 
Company (Connecticut Customers) tendered for filing a complaint against 
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois), and a motion to 
consolidate the complaint with Iroquois pending rate proceeding in 
Docket No. RP97-126-000.
    Connecticut Customers argue that Iroquois improperly retained for 
itself the revenues from five transportation contracts which should 
have been shared with firm customers through Iroquois' revenue sharing 
mechanism, and the Connecticut Customers seek relief in the form of an 
order directing Iroquois to share the revenues.
    Connecticut Customers also argue that Iroquois improperly excluded 
five transportation contracts which produced a total of $2.8 million in 
revenues from the revenue sharing mechanism set forth in Section 4.2(g) 
of its FERC Gas Tariff; under the 90/10/Interruptible Transportation 
Service (ITS)/Short-Term Firm Transportation Service (STF) sharing 
mechanism, $2.5 million of this amount should have been credited to 
Rate Schedule (RTS) customers. Connecticut Customers states that the 
contracts fall into two basic categories: (1) Backhaul contracts that 
were characterized as ``firm'' but that were used exclusively as 
``secondary point firm'' forward haul contracts and should have been 
classified as ITS; and (2) STF contract that was ``amended'' in order 
to avoid the RP94-72 settlement definition of ``SFT''.
    Connecticut Customers states that copies of the filing have been 
served upon the persons named on the restricted service list compiled 
in Docket No. RP97-126-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said complaint and 
motion should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211. All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before May 16, 1997. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. Answers to this complaint shall be 
due on or before May 16, 1997.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-10931 Filed 4-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M