11666 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices

1Texas Eastern states that the Request for Hearing

of this decision has been rendered moot by a

settlement filed by the parties in this proceeding on

February 21, 1995.

to abandon a natural gas transportation

service between Applicants and ANR

Pipeline Company (ANR) for ultimate

use as storage gas for United Cities Gas

Company (Cities), all as more fully set

forth in the application which is on file

with the Commission and open to

public inspection.

Applicants state that they propose to

abandon a transportation service

initiated to implement a storage

agreement for annual storage of up to

100,000 Mcf of natural gas by ANR for

Cities. Applicants also state that the

agreement is dated July 13, 1979, as

amended, April 17, 1980. Applicants

indicate that Panhandle provides its

service under its Rate Schedule T–39,

and Trunkline provides its service

under its Rate Schedule T–61.

Applicants further state that the service

was authorized in Docket No. CP79–

438. It is indicated that the agreement

provides for delivery of gas at a rate of

up to 500 Mcf per day to ANR during

the 1980 and ensuing summer periods.

Applicants aver that during the summer

period Trunkline effects delivery to

Panhandle by reducing existing

deliveries of up to 500 Mcf per day of

natural gas to Cities at an existing point

of interconnection in Massac County,

Illinois and the thermally equivalent

volumes, not taken by Cities, are then

delivered by Panhandle to ANR at an

existing point of interconnection

between Panhandle and ANR in

Defiance County, Ohio, for storage.

Applicants further indicate that during

the winter period, Panhandle would

receive daily volumes from ANR and

Trunkline would make daily

redeliveries of thermally equivalent

volumes to Cities in Massac County,

Illinois.

Applicants indicate that the

agreement provides for a primary term

of fifteen years with extensions

provided for on a year-to-year basis

until terminated by either party upon at

least twelve months written notice.

Applicants state that they and Cities

have agreed to terminate the

transportation service, effective April 1,

1995. Applicants further state that the

interconnection with Cities will

continue to be available for open access

transportation service.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before March

17, 1995, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20426, a petition 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 the proceeding or to participate as a

party in any hearing therein must file a

petition 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 on this application if no

petition to intervene is filed within the

time required herein, and if the

Commission on its own review of the

matter finds that the abandonment is

required by the public convenience and

necessity. If a petition for leave to

intervene is timely filed, or if the

Commission on its motion believes that

a formal hearing is required, further

notice of such hearing will be duly

given.

Under the procedure herein provide

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for Applicants to appear or

be represented at the hearing.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5106 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–218–000]

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.;

Petition for Declaratory Order

February 24, 1995.

Take notice that on February 22, 1995,

Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation

(Texas Eastern), P.O. Box 1642,

Houston, Texas 77252–1642, filed in

Docket No. CP95–218–000 a petition

under Rule 207 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.207) requesting that the

Commission confirm that Order No. 636

does not create a per se rule prohibiting

interstate pipelines which have

implemented Order No. 636 from

entering into contracts for transportation

or storage capacity on other interstate

pipelines.

Texas Eastern submits that the

Commission’s preliminary

determination in Texas Eastern

Transmission Corporation, 69 FERC

¶ 61,132 (1994),1 incorrectly created a

per se rule that precludes a pipeline

from holding pipeline capacity on other

pipelines for economic (as distinguished

from operational) reasons. Texas Eastern

contends that such a per se rule against

economically desirable transactions is

contrary to the policy behind Order No.

636 and is in conflict with prior

Commission decisions. It is asserted

that, if not corrected, the position that

interstate pipelines cannot contract for

capacity on other interstate pipelines

will undermine the Commission’s

efforts in Order No. 636 to create a

flexible, competitively responsive

natural gas industry. Texas Eastern

states that the ultimate loser will be not

just interstate pipelines, but consumers

who need new facilities and services as

well.

Texas Eastern asserts that, unless

corrected, the preliminary order will

foreclose the development of new

services in most circumstances in which

more than one pipeline is needed to

perform a new service. It is stated that

in the new, post-Order No. 636

environment, it is critically important

that pipelines be allowed to hold

capacity on upstream or downstream

pipelines. To create new services for

new markets, Texas Eastern contends

that a pipeline must be able to acquire

firm transportation capacity rights on

other pipelines in areas where the

pipeline does not have transportation

facilities.

Texas Eastern contends that the

Commission will still have its

jurisdiction to review contracts between

pipelines and may withhold approval

where it finds them to be anticompetitive or otherwise contrary to the

public interest. It is stated that the

Commission should not, however,

create a per se rule against pipelines

holding capacity on upstream or

downstream pipelines. Texas Eastern

argues that where the contractual

arrangement is not opposed by any

party and is being used to provide new

services demanded by the market, such

arrangements should be permitted.

Texas Eastern submits that the

Commission should promptly issue a

Declaratory Order finding that interstate

pipelines that have implemented Order

No. 636 may contract for transportation

or storage capacity on other interstate

pipelines.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

petition should on or before March 17,

1995, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices 11667

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.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5109 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP95–208–000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.; Notice of

Request Under Blanket Authorization

February 24, 1995.

Take notice that on February 21, 1995,

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

(Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston,

Texas 77252, filed in Docket No. CP95–

208–000 a request pursuant to

§§ 157.205 and 157.212 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,

157.212) for authorization to operate

four existing delivery taps which were

installed under the authorization of

Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy

Act of 1978, under Tennessee’s blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–

413–000 pursuant to Section 7 of the

Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request that is on file with

the commission and open to public

inspection.

Tennessee requests authorization to

operate the delivery points for

jurisdictional service as well as for the

non-jurisdictional service for which

they were installed. It is stated that the

delivery points are located in

Tuscarawas County, Ohio; Plaquemines

Parish, Louisiana; Powell County,

Kentucky; and Columbia County, New

York. It is asserted that Tennessee

would use the delivery points for the

delivery of gas transported under its

Part 284 blanket certificate. Tennessee

states that operation of the delivery

points is not prohibited by its existing

tariff. It is explained that the proposed

deliveries would have no impact on

Tennessee’s peak day or annual

deliveries and that Tennessee has

sufficient capacity to accomplish the

deliveries without detriment or

disadvantage to its other existing

customers.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after issuance of

the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR

385.214) a motion to intervene or notice

of intervention and pursuant to

§ 157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefor,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for filing a protest. If a

protest is filed and not withdrawn

within 30 days after the time allowed

for filing a protest, the instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5108 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. GT95–23–000]

Questar Pipeline Co.; Tariff Filing

February 24, 1995.

Take notice that on February 21, 1995,

Questar Pipeline Company, tendered for

filing and acceptance to be effective

March 1, 1995, Second Revised Sheet

No. 8 and First Revised Sheet No. 8A of

First Revised Volume No. 1 of its FERC

Gas Tariff.

Questar states that this filing updates

its Index of Shippers by reflecting

information regarding firm and nonotice transportation service agreements

that were executed subsequent to

Questar’s August 1, 1994, filing in

Docket No. RP94–331–000.

Questar states further that a copy of

this filing has been served upon its

jurisdictional customers as well as the

Utah and Wyoming public service

commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with this Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 825

North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington,

D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules

385.211 and 385.214 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214). All such motions or protests

should be filed on or before March 3,

1995. 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. Copies of this filing are

on file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5107 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP95–28–000]

Williams Natural Gas Co.; Technical

Conference

February 24, 1995.

In the Commission’s order issued on

November 30, 1994 in the abovecaptioned proceeding, the Commission

ordered that a technical conference be

convened to resolve issues raised by the

filing. The conference to address the

issues has been scheduled for March 21,

1995, at 10:00 a.m. in a room to be

designated at the offices of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 810

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

20426.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5110 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

Western Area Power Administration

Provo River Project Notice of Rate

Order No. WAPA–65

AGENCY: Western Area Power

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Rate Order—Provo

River Project.

SUMMARY: Notice is given of the

confirmation and approval by the

Deputy Secretary of the Department of

Energy (DOE) of Rate Order No. WAPA–

65 placing into effect a formula for

determining annual, power-related

payments for the Provo River Project

(PRP) of the Western Area Power

Administration (Western) on an interim

basis. The formula will remain in effect

on an interim basis until the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

confirms, approves, and makes it

effective on a final basis or until it is

replaced by another method.

Statement of Revenue and Related

Expenses

The power-related revenue

requirements for the Provo River Project

(PRP) will be based upon projections

contained in the annual power

repayment study (PRS). Differences

between estimated and actual costs will

be adjusted when final financial data

becomes available. The following table

is based on the fiscal year (FY) 1994

preliminary PRS and provides a