[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12942-12943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5734]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-197-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco), tendered for filing certain tariff sheets to 
Third Revised Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2 of its FERC Gas 
Tariff. The proposed changes would generate additional jurisdictional 
revenues of approximately $132 million annually based upon the 12 month 
period ended November 30, 1994, as adjusted. The proposed effective 
date of the filing is April 1, 1995.
    Transco states that the principal causes of the rate increase are 
(1) an increase in rate base resulting from additional plant and higher 
working capital requirements and a reduction in Accumulated Deferred 
Income Taxes; (2) an increase in operation and maintenance expenses; 
and (3) an increase in Transco's cost of capital resulting from an 
increase in the equity component of the capital structure used (this 
filing is based on the Transco pipeline capital structure) and in the 
cost of equity from the pre-filed rate of 14.45 percent to the proposed 
rate of return on equity of 15.25 percent.
    Transco states that since its last rate case filing the Commission 
approved, in a series of orders in Transco's restructuring proceeding 
under Order No. 636 in Docket Nos. RS92-86 and RP92-137, the basic rate 
design and cost allocation methods which are reflected in this filing. 
Specifically, the instant filing reflects, among other things, 
continuation of the following Commission-approved methods: (1) straight 
fixed-variable (SFV) rate design for Transco's firm transportation 
rates; (2) the unbundling of system storage pursuant to order No. 636 
reflected in Transco Rate Schedule ESS contract storage service; (3) 
the roll-in of Transco's Mobile Bay facilities; (4) separately-stated 
gathering charges; (5) a tracking mechanism to recover costs incurred 
by Transco on CNG Transmission Corporation in rendering Transco's Rate 
Schedule GSS service; and (6) a tracking mechanism to recover stranded 
Account No. 858 costs incurred by Transco under arrangements with 
upstream pipelines.
    Transco states that the instant filing also reflects the 
continuation of other rate design and cost allocation methodologies 
which are being litigated in Transco Docket Nos. RP92-137, et al. 
[[Page 12943]] These methodologies are (1) Transco's IT-feeder rate 
design; (2) a systemwide cost of service; (3) interruptible 
transportation (IT) rates designed on a 100 percent load factor basis; 
(4) Transco's so-called volumetric costs being recovered on the basis 
of the same charge being applied to each dekatherm of throughput 
(rather than on a distance-sensitive basis); and (5) a single 
separately-stated gathering charge applicable to all non-Tilden 
gathering facilities and a different gathering charge applicable to sue 
of the Tilden facilities.
    Transco states that changes reflected in the instant filing 
compared to the pre-filed methods in place on the Transco system are 
principally: (1) elimination of the Non-Gas Demand Charge under Rate 
Schedule FS; (2) refunctionalization of certain jointly owned 
transmission facilities to the gathering function pursuant to 
Commission orders issued since Transco's last rate case filing; (3) 
elimination of the IT revenue crediting mechanism based upon Transco's 
allocation of almost $87 million to interruptible transportation and 
gathering services which reflects the trend of Transco's operating 
experience under Order No. 636; (4) elimination of a reverse South 
Georgia adjustment due to the fact that as of September 1995 Transco 
will have flowed back to ratepayers the entirety of its formerly-
overfunded deferred taxes; (5) elimination of revenue credits to cost 
of service for the transportation of liquefiables (because such 
transactions are herein reflected as part of the projection of IT 
throughput); (6) reduced FASB No. 106 expense resulting, in part, from 
flowback of a regulatory liability created during the Docket No. RP92-
137 rate period; and (7) miscellaneous tariff revisions as described in 
the Statement of Nature, Reasons, and Basis.
    Finally, the instant filing proposes on a prospective only basis 
the following changes to the pre-filed methods: (1) a new Rate Schedule 
ICTS (Interconnect Transfer Service) that provides short-haul transfer 
service between pipeline interconnects or third-party facilities 
connected to TGPL; (2) a new Rate Schedule GMS (Gas Management Service) 
that provides for the borrowing or parking of gas at designated pooling 
points; and (3) elimination of the ``at-risk'' certificate condition 
governing Transco's Mobile Bay facilities. These changes are proposed 
to be effective prospectively only after Commission approval.
    Transco also has included in Statement Q a pro forma tariff sheet 
reflecting market-based IT rates for non-IT-feeder transactions. If the 
Commission, in response to interventions in this docket, sets the issue 
of Transco's IT rate design for hearing in this docket, the pro forma 
tariff sheet gives notice of Transco's position on IT rate design, 
i.e., that rates for non-IT-feeder IT service should be marked-based.
    Transco states that copies of the filing have been served upon 
Transco's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before March 10, 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. 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 pubic inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5734 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M