[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12751-12752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5622]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP95-220-000, et al.]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., et al.; Natural Gas Certificate 
Filings

March 1, 1995.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP95-220-000]

    Take notice that on February 23, 1995, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, filed in 
Docket No. CP95-220-000 a request pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Commission's Regulations to construct and operate a new delivery point 
located on a platform in state waters, Timbalier Bay, LaFourche Parish, 
Louisiana (Cailliou Island Platform), to supply natural gas to Union 
Oil Company of California (Unocal) for gas-lift purposes 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 on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Tennessee proposes to install on Tennessee's existing right-of-way 
a 2-inch side valve assembly between an existing 6-inch block valve and 
check valve and inspect Unocal's installation of the interconnecting 
piping and buy-back meter on the Cailliou Island Platform. Tennessee 
states that Tennessee would install, own, operate and maintain the tie-
in assembly and would operate the measurement facility. Unocal would 
install, own, operate and maintain the interconnect piping and install, 
own and maintain the measurement facility, it is indicated. Tennessee 
states that the estimated cost to install these facilities is $7,700, 
for which Tennessee would be reimbursed by Unocal. Tennessee states 
that the volumes to be delivered to Unocal after the delivery point is 
established would not exceed the total quantities authorized to be 
delivered and would have no impact on Tennessee's peak day and annual 
deliveries. National states that the addition of the new delivery point 
is not prohibited by Tennessee's existing tariff and Tennessee has 
sufficient capacity to accomplish deliveries at the new delivery point 
without detriment or disadvantage to Tennessee's other customers.
    Comment date: April 17, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
G at the end of this notice.

2. Colorado Interstate Gas Co.

[Docket No. CP95-226-000]

    Take notice that on February 24, 1995, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944 filed, 
in Docket No. CP95-226-000, an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of 
the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations for 
permission and approval to abandon one 149-horsepower compressor engine 
at the Left Hand Field No. 2 Compressor Station (Left Hand Field), 
located in Kiowa County Colorado, all as more fully set forth in the 
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    CIG states that the 149-horsepower compressor unit installed at 
Left Hand Field in 1979 is a single stage unit and low suction pressure 
is causing excessive vibration. CIG notes that the compressor is 
utilized to compress natural gas supplies from the Cavalry and 
Buscadero Fields to CIG's 20-inch transmission line. CIG indicates that 
the unit proposed to be abandoned will be replaced by a two-stage 123-
horsepower unit to be installed at the existing site pursuant to the 
provisions and authority of CIG's blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP83-21-000.
    CIG asserts that the removal and replacement of the compressor unit 
will not affect the existing land use nor affect CIG's system design 
capacity or operation.
    Comment date: March 22, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.

3. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

[Docket No. CP95-227-000]

    Take notice that on February 24, 1995, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed 
in Docket No. CP95-227-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of 
the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon the sales 
service provided to its customers under Rate Schedule FS-G, to be 
effective November 1, 1994, which was authorized in Docket No. RS92-86-
000 et al., all as more fully set forth in the application on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Transco states that on March 3, 1993, it filed a revised Order No. 
636 compliance filing in Docket Nos. RS92-86, RP92-137 and RP92-108 in 
which it proposed to eliminate bundled sales service to small customers 
under Rate Schedules G and OG and to replace that bundled service with 
(1) an unbundled firm transportation service under new Rate Schedule 
FT-G and (2) for those customers that elected FT-G service, an optional 
sales service under new Rate Schedule FS-G, to be available for a one-
year period. Transco states that this service was approved for a period 
of one year by Commission order issued on October 4, 1993, in Docket 
Nos. RS92-86-000 et al. implementing Rate Schedule FS-G to become 
effective November 1, 1993. Transco further states that in compliance 
with the revised compliance filing, each Rate Schedule G or OG customer 
that elected Rate Schedule FS-G service had the option ninety days 
prior to the end of the one-year period to submit to Transco a one-time 
nomination specifying the portion, if any, of Rate Schedule FS-G sales 
service to be converted to Rate Schedule FS. Transco states that by 
August 1, 1994, ninety days prior to the termination date, no FS-G 
customer had elected to convert any of its FS-G entitlements to service 
under Rate Schedule FS, and that by letter dated September 6, 1994, 
Transco requested that each FS-G customer submit an election form 
confirming that they declined to convert all or part of their FS-G 
sales entitlement to transportation [[Page 12752]] service under Rate 
Schedule FS. Transco states that eight out of ten customers declined to 
convert their service and the remaining two customers verbally 
confirmed their election not to convert.
    Transco states that even though it believes it to be clear that the 
Commission contemplated that the one-year cost-based sales service to 
small customers, as embodied in Transco's Rate Schedule FS-G, would 
terminate automatically, Section 6 of Rate Schedule FS-G, as approved 
by the Commission, states that ``* * * [s]ervice under this Rate 
Schedule is subject to the abandonment requirements of Section 7(b) of 
the Natural Gas Act.'' Accordingly, Transco requests authorization to 
abandon all service under its Rate Schedule FS-G and requests that such 
abandonment be made effective November 1, 1994.
    Transco states that the subject application is the result of and 
consistent with Article II of Transco's Rate Schedule FS-G service 
agreements and with the provisions of Order No. 636, both of which 
clearly viewed service under Rate Schedule FS-G to be interim service 
available only for a period of one year.
    Comment date: March 22, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
F at the end of this notice.

4. Mississippi River Transmission Corp.

[Docket No. CP95-228-000]

    Take notice that on February 27, 1995, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT), 9900 Clayton Road, St. Louis, Missouri 
63124, filed in Docket No. CP95-228-000 an application pursuant to 
Sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and abandon 
facilities necessary to modernize and improve the reliability of its 
Main Line System, all as more fully set forth in the application which 
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    MRT states because of safety, system reliability and increasing 
operating cost concerns, MRT is proposing to implement the first 
portion of a 16-year system modernization program. MRT proposes in the 
first phase of the program to add compression at its Biggers and 
Tuckerman Compressor Stations, retire certain compressor engines at 
these compressor stations, and retire approximately 93 miles of its 
Main Line No. 1. It is indicated that, as a consequence of these 
additions and abandonments, MRT would also need to reconfigure the 
station piping at its Biggers, Tuckerman and Diaz Compressor Stations, 
and relocate interconnections serving 13 delivery points to other main 
line facilities.
    MRT estimates construction costs during 1995 of $6.7 million and 
during 1996 of $7.2 million, to be financed with internally generated 
funds. MRT states that the proposed construction and abandonment would 
not affect the capacity of its Main Line System and would not affect 
service to any existing customer.
    Comment date: March 22, 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 unnecessary for applicant to appear or be represented at the 
hearing.
    G. 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 Section 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. 95-5622 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P