Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices 27941

1See 80 FERC ¶61,264 (1997); Order Denying

Rehearing issued January 28, 1998, 82 FERC

¶ 61,058 (1998).

2Public Service Company of Colorado v. FERC,

91 F.3d 1478 (D.C. 1996), cert. denied, Nos. 96–954

and 96–1230 (65 U.S.L.W. 3751 and 3754, May 12,

1997).

3Trees explains that Northern’s Statement

includes a payment of $26,083.44 that Northern

made to Trees on April 7, 1989, for 1988 taxes, an

amount that Trees subsequently refunded, with

interest, on July 1, 1994.

application should on or before June 5,

1998, 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 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 Texas Gas and

Columbia Gulf to appear or be

represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13493 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. SA98–83–000]

The Trees Oil Company; Notice of

Petition for Adjustment

May 15, 1998.

Take notice that on May 7, 1998, The

Trees Oil Company (Trees) filed a

petition, pursuant to section 502(c) of

the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, for

relief from making Kansas ad valorem

tax refunds to Northern Natural Gas

Company (Northern). The refunds are

required by the Commission’s

September 10, 1997 order, in Docket No.

RP97–369–000 et al.,1 on remand from

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,2 that

directed First Sellers to make Kansas ad

valorem tax refunds, with interest, for

the period from 1983 to 1988.

Alternatively, if it is not relieved from

making the subject refunds, Trees

requests that the Commission permit

Trees to amortize its refund obligation

over a 5-year period. Trees petition is on

file with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

Trees states that Northern sent Trees

a Statement of Refunds Due for

$192,815.47 in principal and

$301,471.37 in interest, computed

through December 31, 1997, for a total

of refund liability of $494,286.84. Trees

states that the Northern Statement

covers seven wells, from which Trees

made sales to Northern from 1983 to

July 1, 1987. Trees asserts that the

Statement includes an amount that

Trees previously refunded to Northern 3

and Kansas ad valorem tax

reimbursements on one well (the

Warner well) that did not result in a

price in excess of the applicable

maximum lawful price (MLP).

Trees also states that during the

applicable 1983–1987 period, 37.5

percent of the working interest in these

wells was owned by a Pennsylvania

Trust which was subsequently

terminated, liquidated, and closed in

1991. Trees asserts that the Kansas ad

valorem tax reimbursements distributed

to this trust are unrecoverable, and that,

once the necessary revisions are made to

remove (a) the previously refunded

principal and interest, (b) the Kansas ad

valorem taxes that did not exceed the

applicable MLP, and (c) the

unrecoverable Pennsylvania Trust

reimbursements, Trees refund liability

consists of $99,611.52 in principal and

$162,013.50 in interest, computed

through December 31, 1997.

Trees also suggests that this

$99,611.52 amount should be further

reduced because it: 1) includes the

principal and interest on pre-October

1983 production, the liability for which

has been disputed before the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation v.

FERC and Union Pacific Resources

Company v. FERC, Case No. 98–60043;

and (2) includes unrecoverable royalty

amounts. Trees asserts that when the

reimbursements attributable to preOctober 1983 production are excluded,

along with the royalties attributable to

the Pennsylvania Trust’s working

interest, the principal amount of its

refund obligation to Northern is

$80,538.82.

Trees also states that it is a small

‘‘mother and daughter operation’’ with

no other administrative personnel. Trees

explains that the subject wells were

priced at the relatively low, NGPA

section 104, flowing gas rate, which

provided Trees with little, if any,

income during the period from 1983–

1987. Trees includes condensed

December 31, 1983–1987 income

statements to support its assertions, and

states that the revenues shown on these

statements include revenues from Trees’

other oil and gas interests, and that the

expenses include (a) its own share of the

operating costs, (b) intangible drilling

costs, (c) administrative costs, including

salaries, rent, payroll taxes, and other

office expenses, and (d) other expenses,

including travel costs, seminars,

licenses, and legal fees. Trees contends

that, because these estimates show

losses for four of the five years, despite

small salaries and little, if any, drilling

and exploration expense, they

demonstrate how important the tax

reimbursements were to Trees’

economic viability and survivability

during that period.

Trees also provides another

condensed income statement for the

year ending December 31, 1997, and

notes that it plans to drill five wells in

1998 and convert a well to salt water

disposal. Trees states that it is pursuing

this drilling program in part out of

consideration of the implied obligations

of the leases for further development

and to protect against drainage. Trees

contends that this drilling program will

tax its cash flow and financial resources,

regardless of whether Trees is required

to make Kansas ad valorem tax refunds.

Trees adds that two of the committed

wells have already been drilled, and

that the total cost to drill and equip all

five wells (if they are successful), and to

convert the other, will be approximately

$1,900,000, of which Trees’ share of the

costs will be $475,000. Trees contends

that it has no monetary cushion to pay

its drilling costs and also pay the Kansas

ad valorem tax refunds.

Therefore, Trees contends that it

should be relieved from having to

refund any of these tax reimbursements.

In the alternative, Trees requests

permission to amortize its refund

obligation over a 5-year period.
27942 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 98 /Thursday, May 21, 1998 / Notices

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

petition should on or before 15 days

after the date of publication in the

Federal Register of this notice, 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, 385.211,

385.1105, and 385.1106). 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13487 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP97–156–007]

Viking Gas Transmission Company;

Notice of Request for Extension of

Time

May 15, 1998.

Take notice that on April 30, 1998,

Viking Gas Transmission Company

(Viking) filed for an extension of

implementation dates for computerrelated capacity release GISB standards.

Viking requests the Commission to

grant Viking an extension of time to

June 1, 1999, to implement the

computer-related capacity release GISB

standards. Viking says it needs

additional time to test and to implement

its capacity release computer

components. Viking claims its ability to

test and to implement its capacity

release computer components has been

delayed due to complications that arose

in conjunction with its conversion to an

Internet-based EBB in place of a dial-up

EBB.

Any person desiring to protest said

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Section

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such protests should be

filed on or before May 22, 1998. Protests

will be considered by the Commission

in determining the appropriate action to

be taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13488 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. PR98–12–000]

Enogex Inc.; Notice of Petition for Rate

Approval

May 15, 1998.

Take notice that on May 1, 1998

Enogex Inc. (Enogex) filed pursuant to

Section 284.123(b)(2) of the

Commission’s Regulations, 18 CFR

284.123(b)(2), a petition for rate

approval to establish new rates for

interruptible transportation services

which Enogex provides under Section

311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act

of 1978. The proposed maximum rate

for interruptible transportation service

is $0.5470 per MMBtu, to be effective

May 1, 1998.

Enogex also proposes an optional

monetary settlement (cash out) for

quantities of gas which are below

nominated delivery amounts

(underdeliveries) or greater than

nominated delivery amounts

(overdeliveries), to reduce the number

of priority categories for curtailment

purposes, and to make certain minor

changes, clarifications and corrections

to the Enogex Statement of Enogex Inc.

in Compliance with 18 CFR Part 284.

Enogex has submitted a revised

Statement in Compliance with its

petition for rate approval, to be effective

June 1, 1998.

Pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2)(ii)

of the Commission’s Regulations, if the

Commission does not act within 150

days of the filing date, the rates Enogex

proposes will be deemed to be fair and

equitable and not in excess of an

amount which interstate pipelines

would be permitted to charge for similar

transportation service. The Commission

may, prior to the expiration of the 150

day period, extend the time for action or

institute a proceeding to afford parties

an opportunity for written comments

and for the oral presentation of views,

data and arguments.

Any person desiring to participate in

this rate proceeding must file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Sections

385.214 and 385.211 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure. All such motions or protests

must be filed with the Secretary of the

Commission on or before June 1, 1998.

Protests will be considered by the

Commission in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this application are

on file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13486 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project Nos. 10865–001 and 11495–000]

Warm Creek Hydro, Inc. and Nooksack

River Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Site Visit

May 15, 1998.

The Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has received

an application for license for the

proposed Warm Creek Project No. 10865

and Clearwater Creek Project No. 11495.

The projects are located in Whatcom

County, Washington.

The Commission issued a notice to

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) on the hydroelectric

projects in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act.

The Commission’s staff will visit the

project site on Wednesday, June 10,

1998. The site visit will begin at 9:00

a.m. at the Acme Cafe on Highway 9 in

Acme, Washington. Interested

individuals, organizations, and agencies

are invited to attend the site visit to gain

a better understanding of the proposed

projects. People interested in attending

the site visit should provide their own

transportation.

If you have any questions please

contact Tim Looney at (202) 219–2852.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13485 Filed 5–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M