Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices 71307

season solicited requests for capacity

turnback, but received no offers to

release capacity. Kern River also states

that the expansion transportation

agreements are subject to the applicable

extended term (ET) rates under the ET

rate program recently approved for

future implementation on the Kern

River system. Kern River estimates that

the rolled-in effect of the proposed

expansion will be an approximately 4 to

6 percent reduction in otherwise

applicable rates for existing shippers,

partially offset by an increase in fuel

reimbursement obligations as a result of

the added compression. It is indicated

that, pursuant to a rate settlement

obligation, Kern River will submit a

timely compliance filing to adjust its

rates effective with the in-service date of

the expansion to reflect the beneficial

impact of the expansion project.

It is also stated that the proposed

California compressor station will have

an electric motor-driven compression

unit. To ensure recovery of the

associated actual electric fuel costs from

its shippers flowing gas through that

point, Kern River proposes an electric

compressor fuel surcharge under its

tariff. It is indicated that, based on the

stated assumptions for electricity costs,

the initial surcharge is $0.0051 per dt of

service flowing through that station.

Kern River also states that the

$800,000 estimated cost to restage the

existing compressor unit at the Fillmore

Compressor Station will be expensed

consistent with the FERC’s Gas Plant

Instructions in Part 201 of the

Commission’s Regulations. Kern River

requests approval to amortize the

restaging expense over 15 years,

consistent with the contract terms

applicable to most of the expansion

capacity. It is also indicated that use of

the approved ET rate levelization

methodology for the proposed roll-in

results in the new regulatory

depreciation rates shown in Exhibit O of

the application. Kern River requests

that, since the total debt-related

depreciation expenses still will be

recovered over the primary terms of the

service agreements, it should be

permitted to continue accounting for the

differences between its book

depreciation and its regulatory

depreciation as a regulatory asset or

liability, with amortization over the

primary terms of the underlying service

agreements.

Kern River avers that the expansion

shippers require service by May 1, 2002,

in order to serve the fuel requirements

of new and existing electric power

generation facilities in California, and

that the new facilities will require seven

months to construct.

Questions regarding the details of this

proposed project should be directed to

Gary Kotter, Manager, Certificates, at

(801)–584–7117, or in writing to his

attention at Kern River Gas

Transmission Company, P.O. Box

58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158.

There are two ways to become

involved in the Commission’s review of

this project. First, any person wishing to

obtain legal status by becoming a party

to the proceedings for this project

should, on or before December 13, 2000,

file with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE,

Washington, DC 20426, a motion to

intervene 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 NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A

person obtaining party status will be

placed on the service list maintained by

the Secretary of the Commission and

will receive copies of all documents

filed by the applicant and by all other

parties. A party must submit 14 copies

of filings made with the Commission

and must mail a copy to the applicant

and to every other party in the

proceeding. Only parties to the

proceeding can ask for court review of

Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to

intervene in order to have comments

considered. The second way to

participate is by filing with the

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as

possible, an original and two copies of

comments in support of or in opposition

to this project. The Commission will

consider these comments in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but the filing of a comment alone

will not serve to make the filer a party

to the proceeding. The Commission’s

rules require that persons filing

comments in opposition to the project

provide copies of their protests only to

the party or parties directly involved in

the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only

on the environmental review of this

project should submit an original and

two copies of their comments to the

Secretary of the Commission.

Environmental commenters will be

placed on the Commission’s

environmental mailing list, will

received copies of the environmental

documents, and will be notified of

meetings associated with the

Commission’s environmental review

process. Environmental commenters

will not be required to serve copies of

filed documents on all other parties.

However, the non-party commenters

will not receive copies of all documents

filed by other parties or issued by the

Commission (except for the mailing of

environmental documents issued by the

Commission) and will not have the right

to seek court review of the

Commission’s final order.

The Commission may issue a

preliminary determination on nonenvironmental issues prior to the

completion of its review of the

environmental aspects of the project.

This preliminary determination

typically considers such issues as the

need for the project and its economic

effect on existing customers of the

applicant, on other pipelines in the area,

and on landowners and communities.

For example, the Commission considers

the extent to which the applicant may

need to exercise eminent domain to

obtain rights-of-way for the proposed

project and balances that against the

non-environmental benefits to be

provided by the project. Therefore, if a

person has comments on community

and landowner impacts from this

proposal, it is important either to file

comments or to intervene as early in the

process as possible.

Comments and protests may be filed

electronically via the internet in lieu of

paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)

and the instructions on the

Commission’s web site at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

If the Commission decides to set the

application for a formal hearing before

an Administrative Law Judge, the

Commission will issue another notice

describing that process. At the end of

the Commission’s review process, a

final Commission order approving or

denying a certificate will be issued.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30485 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket Nos. RP98–39–000 et al.]

Northern Natural Gas Company et al.;

Notice of Summary Settlement on

Kansas Ad Valorem Tax Refund

Matters on Northern Natural Gas

Company’s System

November 24, 2000

In the matter of: GP98–5–000, GP98–8–000,

GP98–12–000, GP98–14–000, GP98–20–000,

GP98–22–000, GP98–24–000, GP98–26–000,

GP98–30–000, GP99–15–000, GP99–16–000,

GP99–17–000, GP99–18–000, SA98–8–000,

SA98–10–000, SA98–16–000, SA98–18–000,

SA98–20–000, SA98–22–000, SA98–32–000,

71308 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices

SA98–33–000, SA98–35–000, SA98–37–000,

SA98–38–000, SA98–40–000, SA98–42–000,

SA98–48–000, SA98–49–000, SA98–51–000,

SA98–53–000, SA98–56–000, SA98–60–000,

SA98–61–000, SA98–64–000, SA98–65–000,

SA98–72–000, SA98–76–000, SA98–80–000,

SA98–83–000, SA98–91–000, SA98–92–000,

SA98–93–000, SA98–97–000, SA98–101–

000, SA99–4–000, SA99–5–000, SA99–6–

000, SA99–18–000, SA99–23–000, SA99–26–

000; Mobil Oil Corporation, OXY USA Inc.,

Amoco Production Company, Anadarko

Petroleum Corporation, Union Pacific

Resources Company, Kansas Natural Gas Inc.,

Bill C. Romig, ONEOK Resources Company,

Barbara J. Wilson et al., Burlington Resources

Oil & Gas Co., Strohls, Strohls, Kansas

Independent Oil & Gas Assn., Ensign Oil &

Gas Inc., Helmerich & Payne, Inc., Midgard

Energy Company, Riviera Drilling &

Exploration Co., Dale Schwarzhoff, Sally L.

Bone, Kaiser—Francis Oil Company, Pioneer

Natural Resources USA, Inc., Lee Banks, d/

b/a Banks Oil Company, Pickrell Drilling Co.,

Inc., John W. Lebosquest, Hummon

Corporation, Leo B. Helzel, GrahamMiochaelis Drilling Company, Kansas

Petroleum, Inc., Benson Mineral Group, Inc.,

First National Oil Company, Louis & Bruce

F. Welner, R. J. Patrick Operating Company,

Pickrell Drilling Company, Inc., John O.

Farmer Inc., Edwin A. Cornell, Hummon

Corporation, Trees Oil Company, Beren

Corporation, Broadhurst Operating Limited,

Partnership No. 2, Broadhurst Operating

Limited Partnership No. 3, Ralph Howard,

Inc., Eastman Dillon Oil & Gas Assoc., IMC

Global, Inc., Continental Energy, Questa

Energy Corp., Argent Energy, Inc., Harken

Energy Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,

Atlantic Richfield Company, Texaco

Exploration and Production, Inc.

Published here is a summary of the

settlement filed by Northern on

November 20, 2000. The settlement

addresses Kansas ad valorem tax refund

matters on Northern’s system.

Pursuant to Rule 602(c)(1)(ii) of the

Rules of Practice and Procedure of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(Commission), 18 CFR Section 385.602,

Northern Natural Gas Company

(Northern) hereby submits an

Explanatory Statement with respect to

the Stipulation and Agreement of

Settlement (hereinafter Settlement).

This statement is a summary only. The

terms of the Settlement are authoritative

as to the intent and the agreement of the

parties.

This Settlement is intended to

facilitate and expedite the Commission’s

implementation of the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia circuit in Public

Service Company of Colorado v. FERC,

involving the refund of Kansas ad

valorem taxes on Northern’s system. In

Public Service, the court upheld the

Commission’s decision that producers

must refund certain Kansas ad valorem

tax reimbursements that were collected

in excess of the maximum lawful prices

(MLP) for first sales of natural gas under

Title I of the Natural Gas Policy Act of

1978. On September 10, 1997, the

Commission issued an order

implementing Public Service. The

September 10 order established

procedures and timetables for producers

to make refunds to the pipelines, and for

the pipelines to flow the refunds

through to their customers.

To comply with the September 10

Order, Northern sent Statements of

Refunds Due to producers in November

1997. Subsequently, Northern received

additional information affecting the

refund liability of individual working

interest owners. As a result, Northern

has made various revisions to its

original Statements of Refunds Due.

many of the working interest owners

have challenged Northern’s Statements

of Refunds Due in formal filings with

the Commission, raising a number of

issues, including headroom (i.e.

whether the price paid by Northern and

the tax reimbursement, taken together,

exceeded the applicable MLP), the

allocation of refund claims among

working interest owners, the

uncollectability of royalty related

refunds, and other objections.

This Settlement is a reasonable means

of helping resolve the difficult Kansas

ad valorem tax refund matters currently

before the Commission. This Settlement

will eliminate the need for more lengthy

proceedings, either formal or informal.

Approval of this Settlement will provide

relief to small producers, reduce the

administrative burdens on the

Commission, its Staff, Northern, first

sellers and numerous interest owners

and intervenors, of litigating countless

proceedings before the Commission that

involve many complex issues. All

parties, as well as the public interest

would benefit from the termination of

numerous petitions for relief under

Section 502(c) of the NGPA pending

before the Commission.

Exhibit No. 1 contains the Deceased

Estates and Bankruptcies. Exhibit Nos. 2

and 3 contain lists of large producers

and small producers, respectively, who

have a refund obligation pursuant to the

settlement and have paid on or before

December 1, 2000. Exhibit No. 4

contains a list of small producers with

total refund claims of less than $50,000.

No further action is required if a Small

Producer under $50,000 accepts this

settlement. Parties may access these

exhibits through the Commissions’s

website at www.ferc.fed.us or contact

the Secretary’s Office at 202–208–0400.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30487 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP99–599–002]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of

Application

November 24, 2000.

Take notice that on October 31, 2000,

Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute)

tendered for filing as part of its FERC

Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No.

1–A, the following tariff sheets, to

become effective November 1, 2000:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 10

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 21

Second Revised Sheet No. 22

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 161

Paiute states that the purpose of this

filing is to comply with the

Commission’s order issued June 30,

2000 in Docket Nos. CP99–599–000, et

al.

Paiute states that the Commission’s

order, among other things, authorized

Paiute to construct and operate certain

pipeline loop and replacement pipeline

facilities, referred to as the Carson

Lateral Project. Paiute indicates that the

Commission’s order authorized Paiute

to recover a portion of the cost of service

associated with the construction project

by means of an incremental facilities

surcharge to be assessed to Southwest

Gas Corporation-Northern Nevada. By

its filing, Paiute proposes to establish

the initial incremental facilities

surcharge. Paiute requests that its

proposed incremental rate and tariff

sheets be permitted to become effective

on November 1, 2000, following the

inservice date of the completed

construction project.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before Dec. 15,

2000, 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 385.214 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