[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31900-31901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-380-000]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application

June 7, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 30, 2001, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company (Kern River), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158, 
filed in docket No. CP01-380-000 an application pursuant to section 
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations for a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity authorizing Kern River to construct 
and operate: (1) A 12-inch mainline tap on Kern River's mainline north 
of Las Vegas; (2) approximately 3.54 miles of 16-inch diameter delivery 
lateral pipeline in Clark County, Nevada (Moapa Lateral); and (3) a 
delivery meter station at the terminus of the lateral, 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.rimsweb1.ferc.fed.us/rims.q?rp2~intro. (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).
    Specifically, Kern River requests authorization to construct the 
Moapa Lateral to provide up to 218.8 MMcf per day of natural gas to 
Duke Energy North America, LLP (Duke) to fuel its proposed 1,200 
megawatt gas-fired power plant near Moapa, Nevada. Transportation 
service to the plant will be provided under authorized Part 284 
transportation service agreements.
    The estimated cost of the proposed lateral facilities is 
approximately $3.8 million. Duke will reimburse Kern River for all of 
the actual costs of the proposed

[[Page 31901]]

facilities, plus associated income taxes, by making a lump sum payment 
upon completion of construction. Kern River requests a final 
certificate order no later than May 2, 2002, in order to complete the 
project before November 2002, the date Duke estimates it will require 
test gas for its new plant.
    Because the pipeline will cross environmentally sensitive areas, 
i.e. the critical habitat of the desert tortoise, kern River states 
that it is seeking a case specific certificate, rather than pursuing 
this pipeline construction project under its Part 157, Subpart F, 
blanket certificate authority.
    An questions regarding this application should be directed to Mr. 
Gary Kotter, Manager, Certificates, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900 or call (801) 
584-7117.
    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 June 20, 2001, 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 of 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 receive 
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.gov/documents/makeanelectronicfiling/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.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14852 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M