[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14353]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GP98-32-000]
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Notice of Complaint and Motion
for Remand
May 26, 1998.
Take notice that, on May 4, 1998, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
(Anadarko) filed: (1) a complaint against PanEnergy Pipe Line Company
(PanEnergy), Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle), PanEnergy
Corporation (PanEnergy Corp), and Panhandle Eastern Corporation
(Panhandle Corp) [collectively: Panhandle Parties], pursuant to an
Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (U.S. District Court) staying Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v.
PanEnergy Pipe Line Company, Civil Action No. H-97-1705 (March 19,
1998), that referred the issues in that proceeding to the Commission
for the exercise of its regulatory jurisdiction; and (2) a motion that
the Commission either determine the issues or remand the issues back to
the U.S. District Court for resolution. Anadarko's complaint and motion
for remand is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
Anadarko explains that, at one time, Panhandle owned certain
natural gas leases that included producing properties, that Panhandle
created a producer affiliate who acquired certain leases from Panhandle
and made sales from Kansas production to Panhandle, and that
Panhandle's producer affiliate recovered Kansas ad valorem taxes from
Panhandle. Anadarko further explains that it was created by Panhandle's
producer affiliate, on or about August 1, 1985, as a new pipeline
affiliated producer, that properties (including Kansas gas leases) were
transferred to Anadarko, and that Anadarko was spun-off and became an
independent producing company on October 1, 1986.
Anadarko contends that Panhandle and its producer affiliate were
Anadarko's predecessors-in-interest and, as such, are liable for any
Kansas ad valorem tax refunds, and interest, required by the
Commission's September 10, 1997 order, in Docket No. RP97-369-000 et
al,\1\ on remand from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.\2\ That order
required First Sellers to refund Kansas ad valorem tax reimbursements
to the appropriate pipelines, with interest, for the period from 1983
to 1988. Anadarko contends that the Panhandle Parties agreed to
indemnify Anadarko from any liability associated with the possible
refund of Kansas ad valorem taxes, both before and after the transfer
to Anadarko, as part of the consideration for the transfer price. Thus,
Anadarko contends that all Kansas ad valorem tax refund liabilities
arising from production after October 4, 1983, and associated with the
working interests of Anadarko, should be paid by Panhandle or one of
its affiliates, not by Anadarko. Anadarko further contends that (a) the
Commission may either adjudicate Anadarko's complaint, or decide not to
exercise its primary regulatory jurisdiction, and (b) if the Commission
decides not to exercise its regulatory jurisdiction, it may (after
making the necessary findings that Anadarko's allegations are
cognizable in court, remand this matter back to the court, by final
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 FERC para. 61,264 (1997); order denying rehearing
issued January 28, 1998, 82 FERC para. 61,058 (1998).
\2\ Public Service Company of Colorado v. FERC, 91 F.3d 1478
(D.C. 1996), cert. denied, Nos. 96-954 and 96-1230 (65 U.S.L.W. 3751
and 3754, May 12, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko states that it filed its complaint in the above-referenced
proceeding before the U.S. District Court, seeking (a) judgment
(against the Panhandle Parties) that the Panhandle Parties assumed all
of the obligations of Anadarko and the Panhandle Parties for refunds,
plus interest, claimed on natural gas sold in Kansas, and (b) recovery
of the refunds that Anadarko has already paid to Panhandle Parties as a
result of the Commission's September 10 order, based on tax bills
rendered after June 22, 1988. Anadarko states that the U.S. District
Court, in its Order staying the Anadarko case, stated that it shall
retain jurisdiction pending resolution of the issues by the FERC and
the exhaustion of any appeals from the FERC's decision.
Any person desiring to comment on or make any protest with respect
to Anadarko's complaint should on or before June 25, 1998, file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C., 20426, a motion to intervene or protest in accordance
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211). 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 the
proceeding, or to participate as a party in any hearing therein, must
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Answers to the complaint should also be filed on or before June 25,
1998.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14353 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
