19928 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

1For purposes of the Phase I portion of the

project, the partnership will consist of just two

partners: KN TransColorado, Inc. and El Paso

TransColorado Company.

2TransColorado asserts that the 2.5-mile facility

could be constructed as an eligible gas supply

facility under Section 157.208(a) of the

Commission’s Regulations in accordance with

TransColorado’s Subpart F blanket certificate.

However, as a convenience, TransColorado has

sought authority to construct the facility in this

docket.

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426. An additional

copy must be sent to Director, Division

of Project Review, Office of Hydropower

Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, at the above address. A

copy of any protest or motion to

intervene must be served upon each

representative of the applicant specified

in the particular application. A copy of

all other filings in reference to this

application must be accompanied by

proof of service on all persons listed in

the service list prepared by the

Commission in this proceeding, in

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and

385.2010.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11060 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP90–1777–008, et al.]

TransColorado Gas Transmission

Company, et al.; Natural Gas

Certificate Filings

April 26, 1996.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. TransColorado Gas Transmission

Company

[Docket No. CP90–1777–008]

Take notice that on April 23, 1996,

TransColorado Gas Transmission

Company (TransColorado), 12055 West

2nd Place, Lakewood, Colorado 80228

filed in Docket No. CP90–1777–008 a

petition to amend the existing

authorization issued in Docket Nos.

CP90–1777–000, CP90–1777–001, and

CP90–1777–006 pursuant to Section 7(c)

of the Natural Gas Act, to phase

construction of the project and to

establish Phase I initial rates, all as more

fully set forth in the petition to amend

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

On June 3, 1994, TransColorado was

authorized in Docket Nos. CP90–1777–

000, CP90–1777–001, and CP90–1777–

006 (the June order) to construct and

operate a new pipeline system

extending from an interconnection with

Questar Pipeline Company in northwest

Colorado to interconnections with El

Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso),

Transwestern Pipeline Company

(Transwestern), and Public Service

Company of New Mexico (Public

Service) in the San Juan Basin of

northern New Mexico. Specifically,

TransColorado, then a partnership

including affiliates of Questar, Public

Service Company of Colorado and KN

Energy Company, was authorized to

construct and operate 311 miles of 22-

inch and 24-inch pipeline, two

compressor stations with a total

horsepower of 10,150, and various

metering and associated facilities from

the Big Hole area of Rio Blanco County,

Colorado to a terminus in San Juan

County, New Mexico. The June order

also authorized initial rates.

TransColorado states that since the

June order there have been a number of

developments affecting the project.

First, an affiliate of El Paso has

purchased the partnership interest

formerly held by an affiliate of Public

Service Company of Colorado. 1 Second,

TransColorado has reevaluated the

scope and timing of the project to reflect

current market considerations.

TransColorado states that as a direct

result of recent marketing efforts for its

pipeline system, it has identified several

producers in the San Juan Basin which

would benefit from the construction of

the TransColorado system on a phased

basis. These San Juan Basis producers,

it is indicated, are situated in close

proximity to a proposed natural gas

processing plant to be known as the

Coyote Gulch Treating Plant, which will

be located in La Plata County, Colorado,

approximately 2.5 miles from the

southern segment of the proposed

TransColorado system. TransColorado

states that these producers currently

have no outlet for production located in

the surrounding Red Cedar producing

area since gas volumes being produced

are already capacity constrained at the

existing Arkansas Loop Plant.

Construction of the Coyote Gulch

Treating Plant will therefore provide

producers in the area with additional

natural gas treating capacity which is

desired. It is stated that the Coyote

Gulch Plant will have a design capacity

of up to 120,000 Mcf per day (Mcfd) to

remove CO 2 and to dehydrate gas.

TransColorado states that by phasing the

project, it believes it will be able to

secure definitive transportation

commitments from many of the area

producers.

To implement the restructured

project, TransColorado seeks to amend

its existing certificate authorization to

phase the project. For Phase I,

TransColorado proposes to construct

and operate:

(1) 2.5 miles of 1′′ pipeline and

appurtenances, from the proposed

Coyote Gulch Treating Plant in La Plata

County, Colorado to an interconnection

with TransColorado’s proposed 24-inch

mainline in San Juan County, New

Mexico.2

(2) 22.5 miles of 24-inch pipeline

extending from a point of

interconnection with the above 2.5-mile

pipeline in San Juan County, New

Mexico to a point of interconnection

with the existing 34-inch and 42-inch

pipelines of El Paso at Valve O in the

discharge side or the Blanco Plant in

San Juan County, New Mexico.

TransColorado states that it has

executed a transportation service

agreement with Red Cedar for 75,000

Mcfd of firm transportation capacity on

the Phase I facilities. TransColorado

states that the estimated cost of the

Phase I portion of the project is

$14,119,320. TransColorado proposes

the following Phase I maximum initial

rates.

Reservation Charge:

$1.54321 per dekatherm

Usage Charge (firm):

$0.0322 per dekatherm

Usage Charge (interruptible):

$0.0322 per dekatherm

Unauthorized Overrun Charge:

$0.644 per dekatherm

TransColorado states that the

proposed Phase I rates will recover the

cost of service for the Phase I facilities,

assuming a design capacity of 120,000

Mcfd. TransColorado asserts that it will

be at risk for any undersubscription of

the available capacity if all capacity is

not contracted on a firm basis by the

time TransColorado commences service.

TransColorado explains that the design

of the rates for the Phase I facilities

conforms to the June order and the

October 18, 1994, rehearing order as to,

among other things, stipulated load

factors, capital structures, and use of the

‘‘Ozark’’ methodology. TransColorado

states that the only items which have

been adjusted are an increase in the

federal income tax rate and a change in

property taxes to include only the state

of New Mexico.

Comment date: May 17, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

2. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation

[Docket No. CP96–262–001]

Take notice that on April 22, 1996,

Texas Gas Transmission Company

(Texas Gas), P.O. Box 20008,

Owensboro, Kentucky 42304, filed in

Docket No. CP96–262–001 an
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19929

amendment to its request filed on March

19, 1996, pursuant to Sections

157.205(b) and 157.212 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205(b) and

157.212) for authorization to add a new

delivery point in Henderson County,

Kentucky, to serve Western Kentucky

Gas Company (Western), a local

distribution company, under Texas Gas’

blanket certificate issued in Docket No.

CP82–407–000 pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request which is on file with

the Commission and open to public

inspection.

Texas Gas’ original request of March

19, 1996, request authority to construct

and operate a new delivery point on

Texas Gas’ Slaughters-Evansville 10-

inch Line in Henderson County,

Kentucky, to enable Western to render

natural gas service to a new customer,

Hudson Foods, Inc. (Hudson-Sebree

Delivery Point). Such request was

noticed on March 22, 1996, with the

required 45-day notice period expiring

on May 6, 1996.

Texas Gas states that Hudson Foods,

Inc. (Hudson), has constructed a

protein/processing poultry plant outside

of Sebree, Kentucky, for which Western

requested the delivery tap from Texas

Gas, which is the subject of the instant

request. According to Western and

Hudson, construction on the plant site

has proceeded ahead of schedule and

the plant site will be ready to receive

natural gas service by Monday, April 22,

1996. Texas Gas further states that

Hudson has represented that a delay in

Hudson’s plant operations due to lack of

natural gas service could potentially

impact hundreds of jobs and create

financial hardship not only for Hudson

but ‘‘many of its employees.’’ Texas Gas

states that for this reason Western

requested that upon receipt of the

necessary environmental clearances that

Texas Gas proceed as quickly as

possible to construct the delivery point

pursuant to the authority of Section 311

of the Natural Gas Policy, but that Texas

Gas continue to pursue the authority to

operate the point pursuant to its blanket

certificate issued under Section 7 of the

Natural Gas Act. Texas Gas states that it

received environmental clearances on

April 18, 1996.

By this amendment, Texas Gas states

that it hereby seeks authority to operate

the Hudson-Sebree Delivery Point under

the authority of its blanket certificate

issued under Section 7 of the Natural

Gas Act.

Comment date: June 10, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph G

at the end of this notice.

3. Northwest Pipeline Corporation

[Docket No. CP96–275–001]

Take notice that on April 18, 1996,

Northwest Pipeline Corporation

(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake

City, Utah 84158, filed in Docket No.

CP96–275–001 a request pursuant to

Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,

157.211) for authorization to abandon

obsolete facilities and to construct and

operate replacement facilities at the

Filer Meter Station in Twin Falls

County, Idaho under Northwest’s

blanket certificate issued in Docket No.

CP82–433–000 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.

Northwest proposes to amend its

filing in Docket No. CP96–275–000. In

that filing Northwest proposed to

replace the existing obsolete two 1-inch

regulators with two new 1-inch

regulators and the existing 2-inch

positive displacement meter with a new

2-inch turbine meter and

appurtenances.

Northwest states that due to

mechanical problems that they have

been experiencing with 2-inch turbine

meters Northwest now proposes to

install a new 3-inch turbine meter as a

replacement. As a result of this change

the maximum design capacity of the

meter station will increase to

approximately 1,550 Dth per day.

Northwest states that all other pertinent

information as stated in Docket No.

CP96–275–000 remains accurate as

previously filed.

Comment date: June 10, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph G

at the end of this notice.

4. Gas Transport, Inc.

[Docket No. CP96–309–000]

Take notice that on April 10, 1996,

Gas Transport, Inc. (GTI) filed an

application in Docket No. CP96–309–

000 pursuant to Section 7(c) of the

Natural Gas Act, and Subpart A of Part

157 of the Commission’s Regulations for

a certificate of public convenience and

necessity authorizing it to replace an

existing compressor and install and

operate a new compressor and the

necessary facilities on its transmission

line, all as more fully set forth in the

application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

GTI proposes to install a 115

horsepower compressor and the

necessary regulation facilities on its

transmission line in Wood County, West

Virginia. GTI states that these facilities

will enable it to more effectively serve

its market demand and reduce its costof-service to its customers. The

estimated costs associated with this

proposal will amount to $222,250. GTI

will recover the costs through internally

generated funds.

In addition, GTI seeks authorization

to remove a 360 horsepower compressor

on its existing facilities and replace the

unit with a 115 horsepower compressor.

The removal and replacement of the

existing compressor is in Washington

County, Ohio. The estimated costs

associated with this proposal will

amount to $166,000. GTI will recover

the costs for this facility through

internally generated funds.

Comment date: May 17, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

5. Texas Eastern Transmission

Corporation, Southern Natural Gas

Company

[Docket No. CP96–332–000]

Take notice that on April 17, 1996,

Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation

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

Houston, Texas 77251–1642 and

Southern Natural Gas Company

(Southern), P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham,

Alabama 35202–2563, herein referred to

as Applicants, filed in Docket No.

CP96–332–000, a joint abbreviated

application pursuant to Section 7(b) of

the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the

Commission’s Regulations, for an order

granting permission and approval to

abandon two exchange and

transportation agreements between the

Applicants, all as more fully set forth in

the application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

Applicants state that the exchange

and transportation agreements are

governed by Rate Schedules X–38 and

X–87 for Texas Eastern and X–13 and

X–39 for Southern. Applicants further

state that the exchange and

transportation agreements are no longer

needed to exchange gas on an

emergency basis and the facilities will

no longer be utilized.

Comment date: May 17, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

6. ANR Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP96–337–000]

Take notice that on April 18, 1996,

ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 500

Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan

48243, filed an abbreviated application

for a certificate of public convenience

and necessity authorizing a revised
19930 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

1Pricing Policy For New And Existing Facilities

Constructed By Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 71

FERC ¶ 61,241 (1995).

2Alberta Department of Energy; American Forest

and Paper Association; Fuel Managers Association;

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership;

JMC Power Projects; Midland Cogeneration Venture

Limited Partnership; Natural Gas Supply

Association; Northern Illinois Gas Company; Public

Service Electric and Gas Company; Selkirk Cogen

Partners, L.P.; UGI Utilities, Inc.; United

Distribution Companies; Viking Gas Transmission

Company; Washington Natural Gas Company.

storage field boundary for its Loreed

Storage Field located in Lake and

Osceola Counties, Michigan, pursuant to

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and

Section 157.7 of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission’s Regulations,

all as more fully set forth in the

application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

ANR states that is requesting approval

of the proposed storage field boundary

because there has been a gradual

expansion of the storage reservoir over

the years, and the grant of authority

sought will help ANR to acquire,

through eminent domain if necessary,

the property it needs to protect the

integrity of the Loreed Storage Field and

the gas stored therein. ANR also states

that approval of the proposed boundary

of Loreed Storage Field will not increase

the storage capacity or the deliverability

of the field. ANR estimates that the cost

of storage and mineral rights will be

$357,125.

Comment date: May 17, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

7. NorAm Gas Transmission Company

[Docket No. CP96–342–000]

Take notice that on April 22, 1996,

NorAm Gas Transmission Company

(NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston,

Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP96–

342–000 an application pursuant to

Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to

continue operating the Dunn Junction

compressor station in Logan County,

Arkansas, all as more fully set forth in

the application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

NGT states that on July 23, 1987, in

Docket No. CP87–458, NGT filed an

application to certificate, among other

things, existing facilities that were

originally constructed and operated as

non-jurisdictional intrastate facilities.

NGT further states that on June 8, 1989,

the Commission issued an order

authorizing the continued operation of

these facilities; however, although the

need for certification for the Dunn

Junction compressor station was

described in the body of the 1987

application, due to an administrative

oversight, Dunn Junction was not

specifically highlighted as a facility

requiring certification on the exhibits

accompanying the application.

Therefore, in order to prevent any

ambiguity as to the status of the Dunn

Junction compressor station, NGT

requests an order authorizing the

operation of the station as a

jurisdictional facility.

Comment date: May 17, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

F. Any person desiring to be heard or

make any protest with reference to said

filing should on or before the comment

date file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., 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 385.211 and

385.214) 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

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

filing 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 is 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 the applicant to appear

or be represented at the hearing.

G. Any person or the Commission’s

staff may, within 45 days after the

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

therefore, 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10990 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. PL94–4–001]

Pricing Policy For New and Existing

Facilities Constructed by Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines; Order Denying

Rehearing

Issued: April 29, 1996.

On May 31, 1995, the Commission

issued a Statement of Policy (Policy

Statement) on the approach the

Commission intended to follow in

establishing rates for new construction

of pipeline facilities.1 The Policy

Statement focused on whether projects

would be priced on a rolled-in basis

(rolling-in the expansion costs with the

existing facilities) or an incremental

basis (establishing separate cost-ofservices and separate rates for the

existing and expansion facilities). The

Policy Statement provided that a

preliminary determination of rate design

would be made when the pipeline filed

its certificate application for the project.

Fourteen parties seek rehearing and

clarification of the Policy Statement.2

Summary of the Requests for Rehearing

and Clarification

Some parties contended the Policy

Statement did not adopt a sufficiently

strong presumption in favor of rolled-in

rates. Others raised questions about how

the presumption will operate, i.e., is it

a bright-line test, how will the rate

impact be determined in specific cases,

and how thoroughly will the

Commission review projects that meet

the presumption? The parties also raised

questions about how the Commission

will weigh the system-wide benefits

against the rate impact. In particular,

some parties suggested the Commission

should not consider several of the types

of system-wide benefits which the

Commission identified in the Policy

Statement.

The parties similarly raised questions

about how the Commission will