[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)] [Notices] [Pages 11666-11667] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 95-5109] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Docket No. CP95-218-000] Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Petition for Declaratory Order February 24, 1995. Take notice that on February 22, 1995, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77252-1642, filed in Docket No. CP95-218-000 a petition under Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.207) requesting that the Commission confirm that Order No. 636 does not create a per se rule prohibiting interstate pipelines which have implemented Order No. 636 from entering into contracts for transportation or storage capacity on other interstate pipelines. Texas Eastern submits that the Commission's preliminary determination in Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 69 FERC 61,132 (1994),\1\ incorrectly created a per se rule that precludes a pipeline from holding pipeline capacity on other pipelines for economic (as distinguished from operational) reasons. Texas Eastern contends that such a per se rule against economically desirable transactions is contrary to the policy behind Order No. 636 and is in conflict with prior Commission decisions. It is asserted that, if not corrected, the position that interstate pipelines cannot contract for capacity on other interstate pipelines will undermine the Commission's efforts in Order No. 636 to create a flexible, competitively responsive natural gas industry. Texas Eastern states that the ultimate loser will be not just interstate pipelines, but consumers who need new facilities and services as well. \1\Texas Eastern states that the Request for Hearing of this decision has been rendered moot by a settlement filed by the parties in this proceeding on February 21, 1995. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Eastern asserts that, unless corrected, the preliminary order will foreclose the development of new services in most circumstances in which more than one pipeline is needed to perform a new service. It is stated that in the new, post-Order No. 636 environment, it is critically important that pipelines be allowed to hold capacity on upstream or downstream pipelines. To create new services for new markets, Texas Eastern contends that a pipeline must be able to acquire firm transportation capacity rights on other pipelines in areas where the pipeline does not have transportation facilities. Texas Eastern contends that the Commission will still have its jurisdiction to review contracts between pipelines and may withhold approval where it finds them to be anti-competitive or otherwise contrary to the public interest. It is stated that the Commission should not, however, create a per se rule against pipelines holding capacity on upstream or downstream pipelines. Texas Eastern argues that where the contractual arrangement is not opposed by any party and is being used to provide new services demanded by the market, such arrangements should be permitted. Texas Eastern submits that the Commission should promptly issue a Declaratory Order finding that interstate pipelines that have implemented Order No. 636 may contract for transportation or storage capacity on other interstate pipelines. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said petition should on or before March 17, 1995, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a [[Page 11667]] 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. Lois D. Cashell, Secretary. [FR Doc. 95-5109 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-M