95-18127. Williams Natural Gas Company v. Kansas Natural Partnership, et al.; Notice of Complaint

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39713-39714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18127]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP95-395-000]


Williams Natural Gas Company v. Kansas Natural Partnership, et 
al.; Notice of Complaint

July 28, 1995.
    Take notice that on July 21, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(Williams) filed with the Commission a complaint pursuant to Rule 
206(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure against the 
above-captioned natural gas pipeline entities, that are owned by the 
Bishop Group.\1\ Williams is an interstate natural gas company that 
competes with the Bishop Group companies. KansOK Partnership is 
regulated as an intrastate pipeline in Oklahoma; Kansas Pipeline 
Partnership and Kansas Natural Partnership are regulated as intrastate 
pipelines in Kansas; and Riverside Pipeline Company, L.P. is regulated 
as an interstate pipeline. Kansas Pipeline Operating Company operates 
these four pipelines.

    \1\ 19 CFR 385.206(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Williams alleges that the four pipelines owned by the Bishop Group 
collectively constitute an interstate pipeline system, and should be 
subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. 
Williams requests that the Commission issue an order: (1) Declaring 
that the Bishop Group constitutes a single interstate pipeline system; 
(2) requiring respondents to promptly obtain all required Commission 
certificates and tariff approvals; (3) withdrawing any certificates 
that were issued to the Bishop Group on the assumption that its 
pipelines would continue to operate as bona fide intrastate systems; 
(4) requiring respondents to comply with all Commission regulations, 
including Order No. 636; (5) requiring the respondents to refrain from 
constructing new interstate facilities without Commission approval; (6) 
requiring respondents to refrain from imposing any direct bills or rate 
increases without Commission approval; and (7) taking such other action 
as the Commission deems appropriate.
    Williams alleges that the Bishop Group plans to construct a 
pipeline, to be known as ``Linchpin 2'', which would connect its 
existing facilities with Panhandle Eastern Pipeline 

[[Page 39714]]
Company at a point south of Kansas City, Kansas. Williams requests that 
the Commission determine that such construction would be subject to the 
Commission's jurisdiction, and would thus require Commission approval 
as a prerequisite.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said complaint should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure.\2\ All such motions or protests should be 
filed on or before August 21, 1995. 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 
August 21, 1995.

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-18127 Filed 8-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M