[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25711-25714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11711]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-464-000, et al.]


Continental Natural Gas, Inc., et al.; Natural Gas Certificate 
Filings

May 4, 1995.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Continental Natural Gas, Inc. Complainant, vs. Colorado Interstate 
Gas Company Respondent

[Docket No. CP95-464-000]

    Take notice that on May 3, 1995, Continental Natural Gas Company 
(Continental), 1400 SouthBoston, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119, filed with the 
Commission in Docket No. CP95-464-000 a complaint, motion for a cease 
and desist order, and a motion for order directing physical 
interconnections pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, against Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) 
(Respondent), alleging violations of the Natural Gas Act (NGA); Section 
7(b)--Unauthorized abandonment of facilities and services, Section 
7(c)--Unauthorized modification of facilities, and Section 284 of the 
Commission Regulations-discrimination in favor of its non-
jurisdictional processing affiliate, all as more fully set forth in the 
complaint which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Continental, an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of 
business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, engaged in the gathering, processing and 
marketing of natural gas, is also a gathering and transportation 
customer on CIG's system and operates a natural gas processing plant 
connected to CIG's system.
    CIG, a Delaware corporation, with principal place of business in 
Colorado Springs, Colorado, is engaged in the business of gathering and 
interstate transmission of natural gas. CIG's system stretches from 
Texas to Wyoming.
    Continental requests that the Commission direct CIG to cease and 
desist in its plans to reconfigure the Mocane Compressor Station and 
direct CIG to provide Continental with the requested mainline and 
gathering interconnections necessary to continue the needed compression 
at the Mocane Station. Continental states that its Warren processing 
plant is located on CIG's mainline, immediately downstream from the 
Mocane Compressor Station (also on CIG's mainline) in Beaver County, 
OK, which is essential to ensuring access to gas supply for the Warren 
plant. Continental alleges that CIG plans to abandon (without 
Commission approval) a significant portion of the compression at the 
Mocane Station and to appropriate such compression (modification) for 
the primary benefit of its non-jurisdictional processing affiliate. 
Continental states that the abandonment of that compression will 
significantly reduce the throughput capability of the Mocane Station 
and will cause severe harm to Continental.
    As explained by Continental, Continental has requested that CIG 
provide it with certain mainline and gathering interconnects in order 
to maintain as well as maximize current [[Page 25712]] and future 
access to the gas supply behind the Mocane Gathering System. However, 
CIG has withheld authorization for these interconnects, as asserted by 
Continental, but CIG has recently provided similar interconnections to 
CIG's processing affiliate. Continental states that CIG has offered no 
explanation for such discrimination. As a result, Continental requests 
that the Commission (1) direct CIG to cease and desist in its plans to 
reconfigure the Mocane Compressor Station and (2) direct CIG to provide 
Continental with the requested mainline and gathering interconnections.
    Comment date: June 5, 1995, in accordance with the first paragraph 
of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

2. Transwestern Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP95-70-001]

    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern), Post Office Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-1188 filed 
an amendment (Amendment) to its original application in Docket No. 
CP95-770-000, which was filed pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural 
Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon certain facilities by 
transfer to Transwestern Gathering Company (TGC), a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of Transwestern.<SUP>1 Transwestern states that the 
Amendment incorporates minor revisions and corrections to ensure 
consistency among the captioned proceeding, Transwestern's 
refunctionalization proceeding in Docket No. CP94-254 and 
Transwestern's abandonment proceeding in Docket No. CP94-751, all as 
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.

    \1\Transwestern states that the facilities which are proposed to 
be transferred to TGC mirror the facilities which are identified in 
the data response filed on September 6, 1994, in Docket No. CP94-
254-000 (Refunctionalization Proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transwestern states that, in response to a June 7, 1994, data 
request from the Commission in the refunctionalization proceeding, it 
conducted an in-depth review and analysis of each facility in its 
entire system, resulting in a different functionalization of the 
facilities from that originally filed. It is stated that the response 
was filed September 6, 1994.
    On October 3, 1994, Transwestern states that it supplemented its 
data response by making some substantial, but mostly miscellaneous 
corrections and revisions to the refunctionalization of facilities. On 
November 14, 1994, Transwestern contends that it again supplemented its 
data response with a summary on its proposed adjustments to plant and 
depreciation resulting from the refunctionalization proposed in the 
data response.
    Also on November 14, 1994, Transwestern submits that it filed an 
application in Docket No. CP95-70-000 proposing to spindown certain 
compression, plants, metering, dehydration and pipeline facilities, 
along with certain agreements and services, by transfer to TGC. 
Essentially, Transwestern proposed to spindown to TGC all of its 
facilities functionalized as gathering in the refunctionalization 
proceeding.
    On December 5, 1994, Transwestern filed a Petition for Declaratory 
Order in Docket No. CP95-112-000 seeking the Commission to declare that 
upon completion of the acquisition by TGC of the facilities being spun 
down from Transwestern, such facilities and the services provided 
through them would be exempt from Commission jurisdiction.
    Subsequent to the filing of the spindown, Transwestern contends 
that it was determined that certain minor revisions and corrections 
were required to the application in this proceeding.
    Comment date: May 25, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph F 
at the end of this notice.

3. Transwestern Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP94-254-001]

    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern), P. O. Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-1188, filed in 
Docket No. CP94-254-001 an amendment (Amendment) to its original 
application filed in the captioned proceeding on February 25, 1994 
pursuant to Sections 7(b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act for a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity and abandonment 
authorization relating to the proposed refunctionalization of certain 
facilities from production and gathering to transmission and from 
transmission to production and gathering, respectively. Transwestern 
states that it filed the Amendment to fully incorporate the 
functionalization of facilities proposed in its data response filed on 
September 6, 1994, all as more fully set forth in the application which 
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Transwestern states that, in response to a June 7, 1994, data 
request from the Commission, it conducted an in-depth review and 
analysis of each facility in its entire system, resulting in a 
different functionalization of the facilities from that originally 
filed. It is stated that the response was filed September 6, 1994.
    On October 3, 1994, Transwestern states that it supplemented its 
data response by making some substantial, but mostly miscellaneous 
corrections and revisions to the refunctionalization of facilities. On 
November 14, 1994, Transwestern contends that it again supplemented its 
data response with a summary on its proposed adjustments to plant and 
depreciation resulting from the refunctionalization proposed in the 
data response.
    Also on November 14, 1994, Transwestern submits that it filed an 
application in Docket No. CP95-70-000 proposing to spindown certain 
compression, plants, metering, dehydration and pipeline facilities, 
along with certain agreements and services, by transfer to Transwestern 
Gathering Company (TGC). Essentially, Transwestern proposed to spindown 
to TGC all of its facilities functionalized as gathering in the 
refunctionalization proceeding.
    On December 5, 1994, Transwestern filed a Petition for Declaratory 
Order in Docket No. CP95-112-000 seeking the Commission to declare that 
upon completion of the acquisition by TGC of the facilities being spun 
down from Transwestern, such facilities and the services provided 
through them would be exempt from Commission jurisdiction.
    Transwestern states that the refunctionalization of facilities 
contained in the data response is fully consistent with the 
Commission's primary function test. In addition, it is stated that the 
refunctionalization proposed in the data response is the basis of the 
spindown to TGC. Therefore, to avoid confusion, to ensure consistency 
among the refunctionalization, spindown and petition for declaratory 
order and to ensure a consistent Commission record, Transwestern 
requests that its original application in the refunctionalization 
proceeding be amended to fully incorporate the functionalization of 
facilities proposed in Transwestern's data response, as amended.
    Comment date: May 25, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph F 
at the end of this notice.

4. Mississippi River Transmission Corporation NorAm Field Services 
Corp.

[Docket No. CP95-376-000]

    Take notice that on April 28, 1995 Mississippi River Transmission 
Corporation (MRT) 9900 Clayton Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63124, and 
NorAm Field Services Corp. (NFS) 525 Milam, [[Page 25713]] Shreveport, 
Louisiana 71101, jointly filed in Docket No. CP95-376-000 an 
application pursuant to Section 7(b) and Rule 207. MRT is proposing to 
abandon by sale and transfer, certain gathering facilities to, its 
affiliate, NFS. NFS is petitioning the Commission for a declaratory 
order, wherein the Commission declines to assert jurisdiction over the 
gathering facilities once the facilities become the property of NFS, 
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specifically, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, MRT 
proposes to abandon by sale to NFS, four discrete, certificated 
gathering systems which MRT states are remote from its transmission 
system. The four gathering systems are: Mills Ranch in Wheeler County, 
Texas; Little Washita in Grady County, Oklahoma; North Reydon in Roger 
Mills County, Oklahoma; and Southwest New Liberty in Beckham County, 
Oklahoma. In addition, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, MRT and NFS petition the 
Commission for an order declaring that the facilities are exempt from 
Commission regulations under Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act.
    MRT states that because the gathering facilities are remote from 
its transmission system, they are not integral to MRT's operations in 
the post-restructuring environment. It is further stated that although 
all of the facilities have been certificated, they have historically 
been functionalized as gathering facilities for ratemaking purposes, 
and that such facilities clearly qualify as gathering facilities under 
the modified primary function test. It is averred that NFS is engaged 
in the business of providing exclusively non-jurisdictional gathering 
services in competition with producers, gatherers and intrastate 
pipelines; and that NFS will operate the facilities in essentially the 
same manner as they have been operated by MRT. It is stated that the 
net book value of the subject facilities as of December 31, 1994 was 
$810,430.
    Comment date: May 25, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph F 
at the end of this notice.

5. Transwestern Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP94-751-002]

    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern), Post Office Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-1188 filed 
an amendment (Amendment) to its original application in Docket No. 
CP94-751-000, which was filed pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural 
Gas Act for an order granting permission and approval to abandon 
certain facilities. Transwestern states that the Amendment reflects the 
sale of certain facilities to third parties, the determination that 
certain of the facilities have already been abandoned and the 
determination that gas is currently flowing through certain of the 
wellhead facilities, all as more fully set forth in the amendment which 
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    It is stated that in the process of analyzing Transwestern's system 
in response to the May 27, 1994 series of gathering orders issued by 
the Commission and while preparing for further proceedings in 
Transwestern's refunctionalization proceeding in Docket No. CP94-254-
000, it was discovered that certain field facilities, including 
compressors, plants, meters, dehydrators and miscellaneous associated 
facilities are no longer used and useful or are uneconomical or 
otherwise unnecessary for continued operation of the pipeline. 
Therefore, Transwestern states that it filed the original abandonment 
application on August 30, 1994. Transwestern determined that it would 
be most practical and efficient to first seek an order authorizing the 
abandonment of facilities in Docket No. CP94-751-000 before seeking the 
refunctionalization of Transwestern's remaining facilities in Docket 
No. CP94-254-000. Transwestern states that it felt that this sequencing 
would avoid the necessity of needlessly determining the facilities 
primary function when they were proposed to be abandoned.
    Transwestern states that it has now been determined that certain 
additional revisions are necessary to the application in Docket No. 
CP94-751-000 to reflect the sale of certain facilities to third 
parties, the determination that certain of the facilities have already 
been abandoned and the determination that gas is currently flowing 
through certain of the wellhead facilities.
    On November 14, 1994, Transwestern submits that it filed an 
application in Docket No. CP95-70-000 proposing to spindown certain 
compression, plants, metering, dehydration and pipeline facilities, 
along with certain agreements and services, by transfer to Transwestern 
Gathering Company (TGC). Essentially, Transwestern proposed to spindown 
to TGC all of its facilities functionalized as gathering in the 
refunctionalization proceeding.
    On December 5, 1994, Transwestern filed a Petition for Declaratory 
Order in Docket No. CP95-112-000 seeking the Commission to declare that 
upon completion of the acquisition by TGC of the facilities being spun 
down from Transwestern, such facilities and the services provided 
through them would be exempt from Commission jurisdiction. In general, 
Transwestern contends that where facilities are removed from the 
instant abandonment application to be sold to third parties, such 
facilities are included in an amendment to Transwestern's spindown 
proceeding in Docket No. CP95-70-000 filed concurrently and will be 
accordingly spundown to TGC prior to the sale to a third party.
    Comment date: May 25, 1995, 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 [[Page 25714]] unnecessary for applicant to appear or be 
represented at the hearing.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11711 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P