[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 717-719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-342]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 718]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-109-000, et al.]
Williams Natural Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate
Filings
January 2, 1996.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Williams Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-109-000]
Take notice that on December 18, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company
(Williams), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74101, filed in Docket No.
CP96-109-000 a request pursuant to Section 157.205 of the Commission's
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,) for approval to
extend an existing 4-inch loop line an additional 1.3 miles to provide
increased delivery volumes to Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) for the Simmons
chicken farm located in McDonald County, Missouri under Williams'
blanket certificate authority issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000,
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection.
Williams indicates that the original loop line was constructed
pursuant to Docket No. CP86-634-000. Williams states that the total
construction cost is estimated to be $407,956 which cost will be offset
by the execution of a new firm transportation agreement by MGE. It is
indicated that the new loop extension will provide an additional 1.87
Mmcf per day of capacity to MGE on a peak day.
Comment date: February 16, 1996, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
2. East Tennessee Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-115-000]
Take notice that on December 21, 1995, East Tennessee Natural Gas
Company (East Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, filed in
Docket No. CP96-115-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18
CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to switch its existing 2-inch
connection to an existing 6-inch connection for continuing firm service
to Knoxville Utilities Board (KUB), under East Tennessee's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-412-000 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.
East Tennessee proposes to construct and operate a side valve and
20 feet of 6-inch pipeline at M.P. 3114-1+2.97 of the KUB Storage
Facility Line located in Knox County, Tennessee in order to use an
existing, plugged 6-inch tap located next to the 2-inch tap currently
being used. East Tennessee states that these new facilities would cost
$10,600 and the existing 2-inch connection would be removed once the
physical connection to the 6-inch tap has been placed in service. East
Tennessee mentions that KUB requested this modification because of
increased residential growth in its service area.
East Tennessee asserts that the proposed connection is not
prohibited by its tariff and the total quantities of natural gas to be
delivered to KUB after switching its connection would not exceed the
total quantities authorized to be delivered. East Tennessee also
mentions that it has sufficient capacity to accomplish deliveries at
the proposed delivery point without detriment or disadvantage to its
other customers.
Comment date: February 16, 1996, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
3. MarkWest Hydrocarbon Partners, Ltd.
[Docket No. CP96-121-000]
Take notice that, on December 22, 1995, in Docket No. CP96-121-000,
MarkWest Hydrocarbon Partners, Ltd. (MarkWest), 5613 DTC Parkway, Suite
400, Englewood, Colorado 80111, filed a petition with the Commission,
pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.307), for a declaratory order disclaiming
jurisdiction over gas processing facilities that MarkWest is
constructing on land it purchased from Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) at Columbia's Kenova Processing Plant (a.k.a.
the Kenova Station or the Kenova plant), all as more fully set forth in
the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection.
In a related proceeding, in Docket No. CP96-118-000, Columbia filed
an abbreviated application for permission and approval to abandon the
Kenova plant, by sale to MarkWest.
MarkWest states that, since its 1988 acquisition of the Siloam,
Kentucky fractionation plant from Columbia Hydrocarbon (a former
affiliate of Columbia), MarkWest has been contractually obligated to
purchase natural gas liquids (NGL) from Columbia, and Columbia has been
contractually obligated to deliver, to MarkWest, the NGL that Columbia
extracted at its Kenova and Cobb processing plants. MarkWest adds that,
because the Kenova plant is old, inefficient, and outmoded, having been
built in 1958, Columbia decided to replace it, and undertook a
competitive bidding process to solicit proposals from third parties
interested in: (1) purchasing and replacing the existing Kenova plant;
(2) demolishing and remediating the old facility site; (3) taking over
the Kenova plant processing function with Columbia's shippers; and (4)
dealing with the Columbia-MarkWest contract. MarkWest, as the winning
bidder, has since moved to construct a new Kenova processing plant, and
states that it expects the new facility to be in service by mid-to-late
December, 1995.
MarkWest asserts that the Commission's jurisdiction under the
Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 717) is limited to natural gas, which
has been construed to mean methane, not the heavier hydrocarbons that
constitute NGL, while the primary purpose of new Kenova processing
plant will be to continue the Columbia-MarkWest contract function,
which (from MarkWest's perspective) will be the extraction of NGL for
sale by MarkWest.
MarkWest further states that there was no Federal Power Commission
certification for the Kenova plant. Therefore, MarkWest believes that
its construction, ownership, and operation of the new processing plant
will be outside the Commission's certificate jurisdiction under section
7 of the Natural Gas Act. Accordingly, to the extent that the
Commission deems it necessary to act on Columbia's abandonment
application, MarkWest requests the Commission to issue an order finding
that the new Kenova processing plant is outside the Commission's
certificate jurisdiction under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Comment date: January 23, 1996, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
4. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
[Docket No. CP96-118-000]
Take notice that on December 22, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West
Virginia 25314-1599, filed an abbreviated application in Docket No.
CP96-118-000, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, Part 157
of the Commission's Regulations, and the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure, for permission and approval to abandon its Kenova
Processing Plant
[[Page 719]]
(a.k.a. the Kenova Station or the Kenova plant), by sale to MarkWest
Hydrocarbon Partners, Ltd. (MarkWest), all as more fully set forth in
the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection.
In a related proceeding, in Docket No. CP96-121-000, MarkWest filed
a petition with the Commission for a declaratory order disclaiming
jurisdiction over the gas processing facilities that MarkWest is
constructing on land purchased from Columbia at the Kenova plant site.
The Kenova plant is located in Wayne County, West Virginia. It was
designed and built in 1957-1958, and was designed to remove essentially
all of the propane and heavier hydrocarbons (i.e., natural gas liquids,
or NGL) and water vapor from the gas stream entering Columbia's
transmission system. The gas processed at the Kenova plant originates
as production from fields in southern West Virginia and eastern
Kentucky. Since it began operation in 1958, the NGL removed from this
gas stream at the Kenova plant is recovered as one mixed liquid and is
transported via a pipeline owned by MarkWest to Siloam, Kentucky, for
further separation, purification, and sale of the NGL by MarkWest.
Columbia states that the Kenova plant needs to be replaced, because
of its age and deteriorating condition, with more modern and efficient
gas processing facilities. Columbia adds that it believes the public
interest can best be served through its abandonment the existing Kenova
plant, thereby allowing a non-jurisdictional company to continue the
processing service now being provided. Columbia notes that MarkWest has
purchased the existing facilities at the Kenova site, that those
facilities are being removed, and that MarkWest is constructing and
will operate new gas processing facilities at the Kenova site, thereby
allowing MarkWest to remove certain hydrocarbons from the natural gas
being transported on Columbia's pipeline system.
To Columbia's knowledge, no certificate exists for the Kenova
plant, due to the Commission's historical view that its jurisdiction
generally does not encompass processing plants. However, to the extent
deemed necessary by the Commission, Columbia requests authorization to
abandon the existing Kenova plant, by sale to MarkWest.
Comment date: January 23, 1996, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F 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 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
the 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
therefore, 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-342 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P