[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 231 (Thursday, November 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71306-71307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30485]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-31-000]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application

November 24, 2000.

    On November 15, 2000, Kern River Gas Transmission Company, (Kern 
River), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158, filed in Docket 
No. CP01-31-000 an application pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas 
Act (NGA) and the Commission's Rules and Regulations for a certificate 
of public convenience and necessity authorizing Kern River to construct 
and operate facilities required to expand its transportation capacity 
from Wyoming to California to serve 124,500 Mcf of new firm, long-term 
capacity, commencing May 1, 2002. Kern River requests an up-front 
determination that the project qualifies for rolled-in rate treatment, 
and for approval of a pro forma tariff provision establishing an 
electric compressor fuel surcharge and approval of its proposed 
accounting treatment for certain expansion costs, all as more fully set 
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open 
to public inspection. The filing may be viewed at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Kern River proposes to install the following facilities: (1) Three 
new compressor stations, the Elberta Compressor Station, in Utah 
County, Utah, the Veyo Compressor Station in Washington County, Utah 
and the Daggett Compressor Station in San Bernardino County, 
California; (2) an additional compressor unit at the existing Muddy 
Creek Compressor Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming; (3) restaging of 
the compressor at the existing Fillmore Compressor in Millard County, 
Utah; and (4) upgrades of the existing Opal Meter Station in Lincoln 
County, Wyoming and the Wheeler Ridge Meter Station in Kern County, 
California. It is indicated that the proposed compression facilities 
will add a total of 49,500 horsepower to the Kern River system at a 
cost of approximately $80 million.
    Kern River states that the proposed expansion facilities are 
designed to accommodate the 124,500 dt per day of commitments for new 
firm service from Wyoming to California under four long-term (10 and 
15-year) agreements resulting from a recent open season. It is stated 
that Kern River in the open

[[Page 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 non-
environmental 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