[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47183-47184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22408]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP99-600-000]
National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation; Notice of Petition
for Declaratory Order
August 23, 1999.
Take notice that on August 13, 1999, as supplemented on August 16,
and August 19, 1999, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation
(Distribution) 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203, filed in
Docket No. CP99-600-000, a petition pursuant to Section 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207) for a
declaratory order regarding the jurisdictional status and regulatory
compliance of Norse Pipeline, LLC (Norse) and its affiliate, Nornew
Energy Supply, Inc. (Nornew), all as more fully set forth in the
application on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
This filing may be viewed on a web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm
(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Distribution explains that the Commission previously found Norse to
be a non-jurisdictional gathering company, but noted that certain
changes in Norse's operations could alter that status. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation, Norse Pipeline, LLC, 85 FERC 61,191 (1998),
reh'g denied, 86 FERC 61,137 (1999). Distribution asserts that recent
business transactions may have alerted Norse's status. Distribution
believes that the public commitment of
[[Page 47184]]
Nornew, Norse's affiliate, to provide service to the Jamestown Board
of Public Utilities (JBPU) using newly constructed facilities and the
Norse system appears to be interstate natural gas transportation
service.
Distribution contends that Norse was put on notice by the
Commission that future flows of interstate gas onto its system would
obviate Norse's non-jurisdictional status and require Norse to apply
for Section 7 authorization. Nornew, its affiliate, has entered
business commitments different from that described in the order, above.
Because of Norse's gathering system status. Distribution says Norse
appears to have entered into affiliated entity transactions that would
strictly be prohibited for a jurisdictional pipeline. Distribution
states that Norse's affiliate, Nornew is committing to construct a
pipeline through which interstate gas will flow, which may require
either certification under the NGA or state regulations as a
``Hinshaw'' pipeline.
Therefore, Distribution submits that Norse is offering to operate
as an unregulated but jurisdictional interstate pipeline by providing
transportation for a supplier (its affiliate, Nornew) to a newly-
connected power station and that such operation have placed
Distribution at a significant disadvantage in the New York marketplace.
Both Distribution and Nornew bid for the transportation contract for
JBPU. Distribution says Nornew won by using Norse's transportation
service.
Distribution wants the Commission to answer the following
questions:
1. Would Norse's transportation to JBPU of interstate natural gas
supplies delivered from an interstate pipeline (such as Tennessee at
Mayville) trigger the requirement that Norse obtain a certificate under
Section 7 of the NGA?
2. Would Norse be required to obtain its Section 7 certificate
before providing interstate service as contemplated under the JBPU
service proposal?
3. Would Nornew become an interstate natural gas pipeline by
building and operating a pipeline that is engaged in the transportation
of interstate natural gas supplies, as contemplated by the JBPU
proposal? and,
4. If Norse or Nornew were to become an interstate pipeline as a
consequence of the JBPU transaction, would the Commission's regulations
and standards applicable to interstate pipelines (including affiliated
marketer restrictions) apply to contracts executed before the
commencement of interstate service but which would require interstate
transportation?
Distribution wants the Commission to act quickly on these questions
as it will guide all the parties in the development of service to the
power plant. Distribution believes Norse and Nornew show no signs of
complying with any NGA jurisdictional regulations and that there is a
significant possibility that affiliate preferences are being granted in
ways completely contrary to the policies of the Commission.
Any questions regarding this petition may be directed to
Christopher J. Barr, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1800 M Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-7142 or Alice A. Curtiss, Senior
Regulatory Attorney, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, 10
Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203 (716) 857-7951.
Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with
reference to said petition should on or before September 13, 1999, file
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE,
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 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-22408 Filed 8-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
