[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28195-28197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13851]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-495-000, et al.]
GPM Gas Corporation v. Continental Natural Gas, Inc., et al.;
Natural Gas Certificate Filings
May 28, 1996.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. GPM Gas Corporation v. Continental Natural Gas, Inc.
[Docket No. CP96-495-000]
Take notice that on May 2, 1996, GPM Gas Corporation (GPM), First
Interstate Tower, 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Room 880, Houston, Texas 77056,
filed in Docket No. CP96-495-000 a motion to intervene, complaint, and
protest to the new pipeline tap and interconnection proposed by
Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in its request filed in Docket
No. CP96-246-000 and noticed on March 18, 1996, to be constructed and
operated under its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-
000, involving deliveries of natural gas to Continental Natural Gas,
Inc. (CNG), for plant feedstock purposes. GPM requests that its filing
be processed as a separate application from Northern's filing, although
GPM protests the proposal in Docket Nos. CP82-401-000 and CP96-246-000,
and moves to intervene in those dockets. GPM's complaint is on file
with the Commission and open for public inspection.
GPM states that its complaint is filed against CNG since it appears
that, based on the configuration and the present and proposed usage of
CNG's facilities, CNG must first obtain authorization under the Natural
Gas Act before it may handle the subject gas to be received from
Northern. GPM alleges that CNG is currently, effectively functioning as
an interstate pipeline without Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
oversight through the use of its own pipelines to effect processing, at
different plant locations, of interstate gas received from transmission
lines.
Comment date: June 27, 1996, in accordance with the first paragraph
of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice. Answers to the
Complaint shall also be due or or before June 27, 1996.
2. K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.
[Docket No. CP96-531-000]
Take notice that on May 22, 1996, K N Interstate Gas Transmission
Co. (K N Interstate), P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado, 80228, filed
in the above docket, a request pursuant to Sections 157.205(b) of the
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to
install and operate
[[Page 28196]]
two new delivery taps and appurtenant facilities located in Keith and
Scottsbluff Counties, Nebraska. These taps will be added as delivery
points under an existing transportation agreement between K N
Interstate and K N Energy, Inc. (K N) and will be used by K N to
facilitate the delivery of natural gas to direct retail customers, all
as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
Specifically, K N Interstate states that by Order issued March 16,
1989, in Docket Nos. CP83-140-000 and CP83-140-001, the Commission
granted K N blanket certificate authority, pursuant to Part 157,
Subpart F of the Commission's Regulations, and by Order issued August
1, 1989, in Docket No. CP89-1043-000, the Commission granted K N
blanket certificate authority to transport natural gas pursuant to Part
284, Subpart G of the Commission's Regulations. By Order issued May 5,
1993, in Docket No. CP93-41-000, K N was authorized to abandon all of
its jurisdictional facilities and activities by transfer to K N
Interstate, and K N Interstate was authorized to replace K N as the
holder of the certificate authorities previously issued by the
Commission in the name of K N, including the above-named dockets.
K N Interstate indicates that K N, as a local distribution company,
has requested the addition of two new delivery points under its
existing transportation service agreement with K N Interstate. K N
Interstate states that these proposed delivery points would be located
on its main transmission system in Nebraska and would facilitate the
delivery of natural gas to K N for sale to new direct retail customers.
K N Interstate states that the activities proposed herein comply
with the requirements of Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's
Regulations. K N states that (1) the volumes of gas which will be
delivered at these proposed delivery points will be within the current
maximum transportation quantities set forth in K N Interstate's
transportation service agreement with K N; (2) the addition of the
proposed delivery points is not prohibited by K N Interstate's existing
FERC Gas Tariff; and (3) the addition of the proposed delivery points
will not have any adverse impact, on a daily or annual basis, upon its
existing customers.
Comment date: July 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
G at the end of this notice.
3. El Paso Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-535-000]
Take notice that on May 22, 1996, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El
Paso), Post Office Box 1492, El Paso, Texas, filed in Docket No. CP96-
535-000 a request pursuant Sections 157.205(b) and 157.212 of the
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205(b)
and 157.212) to construct and operate a delivery point in Hutchinson
County, Texas. El Paso states that the grant of the request would
permit the transportation and delivery of natural gas by El Paso to
Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips), all as more fully set forth in
the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
El Paso states that Phillips utilizes natural gas for feedstock and
fuel at Phillips' Borger Complex in Hutchinson County, Texas. El Paso
states that Phillips has requested gas transportation service from El
Paso to augment the gas service provided by its affiliate, GPM Gas
Corporation. It is further stated that by letter agreement dated March
14, 1996, Phillips and El Paso agreed that El Paso would install a new
delivery point on El Paso's 18'' O.D. E.P.N.G. Schafer Plant to Dumas
Plant Loop Line and 20'' O.D. E.P.N.G. Schafer Plant in Dumas Plant
Loop Line in Hutchinson County, Texas. Accordingly, El Paso states that
it seeks authorization to construct and operate the Phillips Hutchinson
County Delivery Point.
El Paso states that it proposes to transport on a firm and
interruptible basis to the Phillips Hutchinson County Delivery Point an
estimated 16,425 MMcf annually, or an average of 45 MMcf per day of
natural gas. The Phillips Hutchinson County Delivery Point would be
used to deliver gas for use as feedstock and fuel at Phillips' Borger
Complex, as further stated. El Paso states that the total estimated
cost of the proposed delivery point, including respective overhead and
contingency fees, is $38,600. Pursuant to the March 14, 1996 letter
agreement, El Paso states that Phillips has agreed to reimburse El Paso
for the costs related to the construction of the Hutchinson County
Delivery Point.
El Paso states that construction and operation of the Phillips
Hutchinson County Delivery Point is not prohibited by El Paso's
existing tariff. El Paso further states that it has sufficient capacity
to accomplish the transportation and delivery of the requested gas
volumes without detriment or disadvantage to El Paso's other customers.
Comment date: July 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
G at the end of this notice.
4. Williams Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-537-000]
Take notice that on May 22, 1996, Williams (Williams), ost Office
Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed a request with the Commission in
Docket No. CP96-537-000 pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of the
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for
authorization to abandon by sale approximately 1.8 miles of lateral
pipeline and to replace the Vinita town border setting, all in Craig
County, Oklahoma, authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket
No. CP82-479-000, all as more fully set forth in the request on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Williams proposes to abandon by sale to Western Resources, Inc.
(WRI) approximately 1.8 miles of 8-inch lateral pipeline downstream of
Williams's Vinita town border in Craig County, Oklahoma. WRI would
incorporate the 8-inch pipeline segment into its distribution system
and offer gas service to potential customers in the area.
In addition, Williams proposes to replace the Vinita town border
setting at the existing location and to reclaim the 6-inch Vinita town
border meter setting, a regulator setting, and dust scrubber. The
projected volume of delivery with the replacement town border
facilities is not expected to exceed the current delivery volume.
The estimated cost of construction to replace the Vinita town
border setting is estimated to be $109,115 and the sales price of the
facilities to WRI would be $10.
Comment date: July 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard Paragraph
G at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
F. Any person desiring to be heard or make any protest with
reference to said filing should on or before the comment date file with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
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 385.211 and 385.214) 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
[[Page 28197]]
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 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 filing 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 is 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 the 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. 96-13851 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P