[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30296-30299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14058]
[[Page 30296]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-502-000, et al.]
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, et al.; Natural Gas
Certificate Filings
June 1, 1995.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
[Docket No. CP95-502-000]
Take notice that on May 17, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West
Virginia 25314, filed in Docket No. CP95-502-000 a request pursuant to
Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to operate
as jurisdictional facilities, two existing delivery point facilities,
constructed under Section 311 (a) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of
1978, under Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-
76-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully
set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection.
Columbia proposes to operate as jurisdictional facilities an
existing delivery point located in Stark County, Ohio to serve Power
Resources Operating Company and an existing delivery point located in
Clay County, West Virginia to serve Wagner Gas Company. Columbia
asserts that these facilities would be used for Part 284 Subpart G
transportation service under Columbia's Blanket Certificate in Docket
No. CP86-240-000. Columbia states that deliveries to the Stark County
point, which cost $35,400, would be 4,000 Dth of gas per day and
deliveries to the Clay County point, which cost $13,562, would be 10
Dth of gas per day.
Columbia states that the quantities of gas to be provided through
the new delivery points would be within its authorized level of
services and there would be no adverse impact on its existing
customers.
Comment date: July 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
G at the end of this notice.
2. ANR Pipeline Company
[Docket No. CP95-507-000]
Take notice that on May 22, 1995, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 500
Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243, filed a request with the
Commission in Docket No. CP95-507-000 pursuant to Sections 157.205 and
157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
to construct and operate an interconnection to the City of Gallatin
(Gallatin), authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket No.
CP82-480-000, all as more fully set forth in the request on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection.
ANR proposes to construct an interconnection which would consist of
a tie-in that would provide delivery of natural gas to the City of
Gallatin, located in Harrison County, Missouri. The interconnection
would consist of a tie-in to ANR's existing 4-inch lateral, one 2-inch
turbine meter, one 2-inch displacement meter, electronic measurement
and a yard building in addition to approximately 100 feet of 3-inch
yard pipe. ANR states that the costs of the proposed facilities would
be approximately $162,000 and further states that facilities would
provide Gallatin with a maximum capacity of 10 Mmcf/d.
Comment date: July 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
(G) at the end of this notice.
3. Northern Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP95-515-000]
Take notice that on May 24, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed
a prior notice request with the Commission in Docket No. CP95-515-000
pursuant to Section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to upgrade an existing delivery
point in Cumings County, Nebraska, under Northern's blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA, all
as more fully set forth in the request which is open to the public for
inspection.
Northern proposes to upgrade the existing West Point Town Border
Station (TBS) #1, Cumings County, Nebraska, in order to accommodate
natural gas deliveries to UtiliCorp United Inc. (UCU) under currently
effective throughput service agreements. Northern states that the
incremental peak day and annual gas deliveries at the West Point TBS #1
would increase by 451 MMBtu and 17,740 MMBtu, respectively. Northern
further states that the total volumes to be delivered to UCU would not
exceed the currently certificated volumes and that Northern's tariff
does not prohibit the proposed upgrade.
Northern also states that the upgrade would enable Northern to meet
peak day requirements, maintain the operational integrity and
efficiency of the meter, and assure UCU's continuous service to their
residential, industrial, and commercial customers. Northern estimates
that the proposed West Point TBS #1 upgrade would cost approximately
$15,000.
Comment date: July 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
(G) at the end of this notice.
4. Enron Gulf Coast Gathering, Limited Partnership
[Docket No. CP95-516-000]
Take notice that on May 25 1995, Enron Gulf Coast Gathering,
Limited Partnership (EGCG), P. O. Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-1188,
filed a petition in Docket No. CP95-516-000, requesting that when EGCG
acquires Northern Natural Gas Company's (Northern) Matagorda Offshore
Pipeline System (MOPS), located in offshore and onshore Texas, that the
Commission declare that the MOPS facilities are gathering facilities
exempt from the provisions of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more
fully set forth in the petition which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection.
It is stated that on May 24, 1995, EGCG and Northern entered into a
contract where EGCG will acquire MOPS from Northern, subject to certain
conditions, including a determination by the Commission that the MOPS'
facilities are nonjurisdictional gathering facilities not subject to
Commission jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the NGA. EGCG states that
after abandonment of MOPS by Northern and its transfer to EGCG, it will
still be subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). EGCG
asserts that it will provide open and nondiscriminatory access to all
shippers in accordance with Section 5(f) of the OCSLA by offering
gathering, treating, dehydrating and compression services to producers
and shippers seeking such services.
EGCG submits that MOPS meets the criteria of ``gathering
facilities'' under Section 1(b) of the NGA as interpreted by the
Commission under the ``modified primary function'' test, as set forth
in Amerada Hess Corp., et al., as amended. 52 FERC para. 61,268 (1990).
EGCG notes that the pipeline diameters in MOPS vary from 4'' for the
smallest tie lines up to 24'' for the final segment of the line which
gathers the gas before being dehydrated and delivered to any of seven
onshore delivery points on interstate and intrastate downstream
pipelines. EGCG states that the diameter of the larger lines is simply
a function of the number of tie lines and wells, the
[[Page 30297]] fact that it is an offshore pipeline and the distance of
the gas from interconnecting points to the market. EGCG argues that it
must be recognized that the capacity of a given pipeline is a function
not only of the diameter of the pipe, but also of the pressure at which
the line is operated and the geographic area where it is located. EGCG
notes that, typically, pipelines operating in the Gulf Coast are
operated at high pressures.
EGCG relates that the central point for this analysis is Tivoli.
EGCG says that the system's configuration is similar to that in Koch
Hydrocarbon Corp., 59 FERC para. 61,110 (1992), where the Commission
found as significant the fact that the stubs downstream of a plant were
relatively short in length as compared to the remaining gathering
system. EGCG states the minimal facilities downstream of Tivoli are
necessary for the gas production to reach various interconnection
facilities. EGCG states that the geographic configuration is similar to
an inverted ``y'', typical of other offshore systems found to be
gathering, and that the aggregate length of all the gathering pipeline
in MOPS is 101 miles which EGCG says supports a finding that the
configuration of the system and the distance between the area of
production and the nearest interconnecting points with transmission
facilities of an interstate or intrastate pipeline are consistent with
the criteria which constitutes gathering.
EGCG indicates that the wells attached to MOPS are located
throughout the Texas Gulf Coast producing areas where Northern operates
its MOPS facilities. EGCG states that the MOPS facilities gather gas
from various producing areas in the OCS for ultimate delivery to
Tivoli, and redelivery to any of seven onshore transporters. EGCG
further relates that the gas flowing through the system is unprocessed
gathered gas, and if compressor facilities are needed, the gas is
compressed on Northern's MAT 686 platform to a pressure sufficient to
allow the gas to flow into the downstream onshore dehydration
facilities and to third party separation facilities located onshore at
Tivoli or to onshore delivery points. EGCG says the pressure at which
MOPS usually operates is 1,200 psig, which the Commission has found to
be consistent with that of offshore gathering systems. Finally, EGCG
relates that upon EGCG's purchase of MOPS, those facilities will be
owned and operated by an entity which will be engaged in the gathering
of natural gas on the OCS as its primary business.
EGCG requests that its petition be consolidated with Northern's
abandonment application filed in Docket No. CP95-519-000 which involves
the abandonment by sale of what is commonly known as Northern's MOPS
facilities.
Comment date: June 22, 1995, in accordance with the first
subparagraph of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
5. Northern Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP95-517-000]
Take notice that on May 25, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company,
(Northern), P.O. 3330, Omaha Nebraska 68103-0330, filed in Docket No.
CP95-517-000 a request for an order declaring that certain facilities
be functionalized as transmission facilities for rate purposes and
requests expedited action, all as more fully set forth in the petition
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Northern lists certain facilities in its Exhibit 1 and states that
such facilities are located on Northern's transmission system and
perform purification and/or dehydration of natural gas in interstate
commerce. Northern states that application of the primary function test
leads to the conclusion that these facilities serve transmission-
related functions and, therefore, the costs associated with the
facilities are appropriately recovered in Northern's transmission
rates.
Comment date: June 22, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
F at the end of this notice.
6. Transwestern Pipeline Company
[Docket No. CP95-518-000]
Take notice that on May 25, 1995, Transwestern Pipeline Company
(Transwestern), 1400 Smith Street, P.O. Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-
1188, filed in Docket No. CP95-518-000 a request pursuant to Sections
157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to construct and
operate two taps and two valves as a new point of delivery in Mohave
County, Arizona under Transwestern's blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP82-534-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act,
all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
Transwestern proposes to install and operate two taps and two side
valves as a new point of delivery to North Star Steel Company.
Comment date: July 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
(G) at the end of this notice.
7. Northern Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP95-519-000]
Take notice that on May 25, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed,
in Docket No. CP95-519-000, an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations
for permission and approval to abandon, by sale to Enron Gulf Coast
Gathering, Limited Partnership (EGCG), its interest in certain
compression, pipeline, and dehydration facilities, with appurtenances,
located in offshore and onshore Texas, and more commonly known as
Northern's Matagorda Offshore Pipeline System (MOPS) facilities, as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
Northern states that the MOPS facilities are non-contiguous to
Northern's traditional transmission pipeline system and are no longer
needed by Northern as its role in the marketplace has changed from a
merchant of natural gas to a transporter of natural gas. Northern
relates that the MOPS facilities are located on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) and are subject to Sections 5(e) and 5(f) of the OCS Lands
Act (OCSLA), 43 USC Sec. 1334 (e) and (f). Northern states that it
proposes to transfer its interest in the MOPS facilities to an
affiliated company, EGCG, which will operate the facilities on a non-
jurisdictional basis. Northern notes that upon its abandonment of the
facilities, EGCG will be subject to the OCSLA.
Northern states it is currently providing transportation service on
the facilities which will be terminated on the effective date of the
sale of the MOPS facilities to EGCG. Northern says that EGCG will
assume Northern's obligations and perform the services needed as non-
jurisdictional gathering services during the remaining term for any
transportation contracts whose primary terms have not expired by the
effective date of the sale. Northern has submitted in Exhibit U, Part
2, a proposed default agreement to be used by EGCG to provide
continuity of service to existing customers utilizing the MOPS
facilities.
Northern says it will be seeking abandonment of Rate Schedule X-87
(an exchange agreement with TGPL) and Rate Schedule X-103 (an exchange
agreement with Pan-Alberta Gas Inc.), [[Page 30298]] both which contain
receipt and delivery points on the MOPS facilities. Northern requests
that if abandonment authorization for these two rate schedules has not
been received prior to the approval of the instant application, that
abandonment authorization be issued concurrently.
Exhibit T to the application identifies the receipt and delivery
points on MOPS facilities which Northern will eliminate upon
abandonment.
Exhibit X to the application contains pro forma tariff sheet No.
221 to be included in Northern's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume
No. 1. The pro forma tariff sheet sets forth language for standards of
conduct for affiliate gathering consistent with recent Commission
direction. Field Gas Gathering Inc., 67 FERC para. 61,259 (1994).
Northern states that EGCG will be assuming the entire economic risk
of the MOPS facilities and any remaining service obligations associated
with the MOPS facilities. Northern asserts that it will not seek any
Order No. 636, et al. stranded facility costs associated with its MOPS
facilities.
Northern requests that its petition in Docket No. CP95-519-000 be
consolidated with EGCG's Petition for a Declaratory Order in Docket No.
CP95-516-000 which seeks a determination that the MOPS facilities, once
conveyed to EGCG, are gathering facilities not subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1(b) of the NGA.
Comment date: June 22, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
(F) at the end of this notice.
8. Northwest Pipeline Corporation
[Docket No. CP95-521-000]
Take notice that on May 25, 1995, Northwest Pipeline Corporation
(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158, filed in
Docket No. CP95-521-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.211
and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to abandon delivery point
facilities and construct and operate replacement facilities in
Snohomish County, Washington, to accommodate deliveries of natural gas
to Cascade Natural Gas Corporation (Cascade), under Northwest's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-433-000 pursuant to Section 7 of
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Northwest proposes to modify its existing Deming Meter Station by
replacing obsolete metering facilities with new ones. It is stated that
the replacement is necessary to accommodate more efficient deliveries
to Cascade and to increase the capacity of the meter station. The cost
of the proposed modification of facilities is estimated at $46,020,
including both removal and construction. It is asserted that Northwest
is authorized to provide a firm transportation service for Cascade
under the terms of its Rate Schedules TF-1 and TF-2. It is asserted
that no significant impact on Northwest's peak day or annual deliveries
will result from the proposed modification of the Deming Meter Station.
Comment date: July 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
(G) at the end of this notice.
9. Williams Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP95-525-000]
Take notice that on May 25, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No. CP95-
525-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.216, 157.208 and
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18
CFR 157.205, 157.216, 157.208, 157.212) for authorization: (1) to
abandon approximately 3.7 miles of WNG's South Iola 8-inch pipeline and
to construct and operate approximately 3.7 miles of replacement 6-inch
pipeline; (2) to construct approximately 1.2 miles of 6-inch pipeline
to connect WNG's existing Iola 8-inch pipeline and its new South Iola
6-inch pipeline; (3) to relocate two domestic customers and the Western
Resources, Inc. Dry Lake town border from the South Iola 8-inch
pipeline to the new 6-inch pipeline and (4) to relocate the Coffman
meter setting from the Iola 8-inch pipeline to the new South Iola 6-
inch pipeline, all located in Allen County, Kansas, under WNG's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000 pursuant to Section 7 of
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
WNG states that since it will operate the new 6-inch pipeline at a
higher pressure than the existing 8-inch pipeline, it does not
anticipate any change in delivery capability. WNG estimates the total
construction cost to be $803,000.
Comment date: July 22, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
(G) at the end of this notice.
10. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
[Docket No. CP95-527-000]
Take notice that on May 26, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-
1273, filed in Docket No. CP95-527-000 an abbreviated joint application
pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, and
Sections 157.7 and 157.18 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) regulations thereunder, for permission and approval to
abandon a natural gas transportation service for Weirton Steel
Corporation (Weirton Steel) 1, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
\1\ Formerly National Steel Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia states that it received up to 35,000 Dth per day of gas
for Weirton Steel's account from Kentucky-West Virginia Gas Company
(Kentucky West) at existing points of interconnection near Maytown or
Dwale, Floyd County, Kentucky. It is indicated that Columbia then
transported this gas under authority granted by the Commission in
Docket No. CP83-364-000 2 and under Rate Schedule X-111 on an
interruptible basis, less retainage, for the account of Weirton Steel
to Mountaineer Gas Company (Mountaineer) 3 for ultimate delivery
to Weirton Steel's plant in Weirton, West Virginia. Columbia further
states that its obligation to transport the gas was subject to the
limits of available capacity in its existing facilities, to its
obligation to customers served pursuant to its FERC Gas Tariff, Volume
No. 1, to the transportation of Columbia's own gas production and
purchases, and to precedent transportation and exchange agreements.
\2\ See order at 27 FERC para. 61,368 (1984)
\3\ Formerly Columbia Gas of West Virginia, Inc.
Columbia indicates that it provided written notice to National
Steel and to Weirton Steel on July 6, 1993, of termination of the
transportation agreement. Columbia states that volumes were last
transportation under Rate Schedule X-111 in January 1983 and there are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
no outstanding imbalances.
Comment date: June 22, 1995, 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 [[Page 30299]] Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C. 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 Section 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. 95-14058 Filed 6-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
