El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. CP94-329-000, et al.]

El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate

Filings

April 12, 1994.

Take notice that the following filings have been made with the

Commission:

1. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

[Docket No. CP94-329-000]

Take notice that on April 1, 1994, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El

Paso), Post Office Box 1492, El Paso, Texas 79978, filed an application

at Docket No. CP94-329-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas

Act (NGA) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity

authorizing El Paso to construct and operate its North/South Transfer

Project. El Paso also requests a determination that the costs for the

North/South Transfer Project would be rolled into El Paso's cost-of-

service as a part of the first system-wide general rate proceeding

following the in-service date of the proposed facilities, all as more

fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

El Paso requests expeditious authorization of the North/South

Transfer Project since it has been designed to enhance El Paso's system

operating flexibility and to contribute directly to maximum system

utilization, by providing enhanced multi-directional flow operations.

El Paso states that construction of the North/South Transfer Project

would therefore facilitate El Paso's ability to react quickly to

changing market requirements on both the demand and supply sides on its

system.

El Paso states that while its system has always had to respond to

changing markets prior to open-access, El Paso could optimize the

sequencing of supplies to maximize system efficiency. El Paso states

that it controls neither the market nor the supply and must stand ready

to handle a wide variety of combinations of supply and demand. El Paso

further states that during the last five years, the California market

has been evolving in a new direction which has resulted in fundamental

changes in the demand patterns on El Paso's transmission system. El

Paso states that the day-to-day changes in system loading has created a

need for additional system flexibility.

El Paso also states that the market changes are caused, in part, by

several events. First, the demand for gas deliveries at the Topock

Delivery Point by El Paso's California customers has decreased as a

result of the expansion of Pacific Gas Transmission Company's system to

move Canadian gas supplies into northern California, the capacity

available through the Kern River Gas Transmission Company system, and

the capacity available from the Transwestern Pipeline Company

(Transwestern) system at Topock (referred to as Needles by

Transwestern). El Paso states that if prices for gas in the southwest

are high, the California market shifts to the Canadian supplies. This

decrease in demand at Topock imposes an external constraint on El

Paso's North System which results in capacity allocations in the San

Juan Basin supply area. Second, El Paso states that the continuing

buildup of supply in the San Juan Basin has made that area's gas

production a more economically attractive supply source for El Paso's

customers served by the South System. Third, El Paso states that

producers in the Permian and Anadarko Basins have found markets within

Texas and to the east, unloading El Paso's system. Of El Paso's supply

sources, the supplies in the Permian and Anadarko Basins are closest to

the eastern markets and can easily swing off El Paso's system in very

short notice. El Paso states that the California market changes, the

ability for producers in all supply basins to swing off El Paso's

system on a day-to-day basis, and El Paso's need for system flexibility

to quickly respond to the day-to-day market and supply changes support

the need to transfer gas between the two systems and collectively

constitutes the driving forces behind the North/South Transfer Project.

El Paso further states that given these developments in the market

and their direct impact on El Paso's system, El Paso has recognized

that its existing system can better serve the market if modified to

facilitate operation in a multi-directional manner. El Paso proposes to

construct and operate approximately 98.4 miles of 30-inch pipeline

(``North/South Transfer Line''), with appurtenances, to parallel the

existing 30-inch Havasu Crossover Line and proposes to modify the

operation of the existing Dutch Flat Compressor Station, all located

near the western end of El Paso's North and South Systems. El Paso

states that the approximate cost of construction of the North/South

Transfer Project is $62,364,000, with a resultant third year cost of

service of only approximately $10.4 million.

El Paso states that its proposal would provide El Paso with the

capability to transfer an additional 468.6 Mmcf per day of natural gas

from El Paso's North System to its South System. El Paso further states

that the construction of these facilities, together with the operation

of the existing system in a multi-directional manner would permit El

Paso to enhance system flexibility, maximize system utilization, and

thereby more quickly respond to ever-changing market and supply

conditions. El Paso also states that firm delivery capacity would not

be increased by the facilities.

El Paso also requests a determination from the Commission granting

El Paso approval to roll-in the costs associated with the North/South

Transfer Project into its total cost of service. El Paso states that

when the facilities are placed in-service, El Paso would charge its

then current and effective Part 284 rates. El Paso further states that

it would roll-in the cost associated with the North/South Transfer

Project in the first system-wide general rate proceeding initiated

following the in-service date of the North/South Transfer Project.

El Paso asserts that the proposed North/South Transfer Project

benefits producers, end-users, and shippers utilizing El Paso's system.

El Paso further asserts that producers in any basin would be able to

get their gas more reliably to markets served by El Paso's system and

would be less likely to be subject to capacity allocations and shut-

ins. Shippers will also have more flexibility in moving gas to their

new markets and greater certainty of supply sources. El Paso states

that as a result of these circumstances, end-users would benefit from a

further increase in reliability of gas supplies and deliveries.

Comment date: May 3, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph F

at the end of this notice.

2. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

[Docket No. CP94-332-000]

Take notice that on April 4, 1994, Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West

Virginia 25314, filed in Docket No. CP94-332-000 a petition for

declaratory order requesting that the Commission clarify whether

certain construction falls within the provisions of Sec. 2.55(b) of the

Commission's General Policy and Interpretations for replacement of

facilities, all as more fully set forth in the petition which is on

file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Columbia states that the past practice of ``telescoping'' pipelines

in storage fields, the sizing of pipelines in proportion to the gas

flow, now impairs Columbia's ability to effectively clean and inspect

these facilities. Columbia further asserts that it has experienced

failures in its storage pipeline system due to external and internal

corrosion of the facilities.

Columbia states that, in order to correct the corrosion problem, it

has initiated a program to install permanent launching and receiving

facilities in parts of its existing storage field pipeline system.

Columbia further states that in certain storage fields it would be

necessary to replace short segments of the telescoped pipeline to

provide for a uniform pipe size between launcher and receiver

locations. Columbia asserts that uniform pipe size would eliminate the

need for multiple launcher and receiver locations thereby enabling the

pigging system to be more effective.

Columbia states that it believes that this replacement construction

constitutes the replacement of facilities as envisioned by Sec. 2.55(b)

of the Commission's General Policy and Interpretations. Columbia

asserts that the ``a substantially equivalent designed delivery

capacity as the facilities being replaced'' criteria in Sec. 2.55(b) is

not accompanied by further definition that would indicate how the

Commission would interpret the phrase. Columbia further asserts that

its review of relevant Commission decisions did not clarify the phrase

with sufficient precision to eliminate the need to seek NGA section

7(c) certificate authorization. Columbia states that it has filed for

authorization to construct these type of facilities at the Medina

Storage Field in Docket No. CP94-252-000 and at the Weaver Storage

Field in Docket No. CP94-320-000.

Columbia requests that the Commission issue a declaratory order

clarifying that Sec. 2.55(b) of the Commission's General Policy and

Interpretations may be interpreted to include the replacement of

facilities of the type described above and described in more detail in

the referenced applications filed by Columbia in regard to the Medina

and Weaver Storage Fields.

Comment date: May 3, 1994, in accordance with the first paragraph

of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

3. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

[Docket No. CP94-348-000]

Take notice that on April 11, 1994, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (TGPL), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, filed in

Docket No. CP94-348-000, a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and

157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18

CFR 157.205 and 157.212) for authorization to operate an existing

delivery tap to Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (Piedmont) on TGPL's

Maiden Lateral in Lincoln County, North Carolina under the blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-426-000, pursuant to section 7(c)

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.

TGPL proposes to operate an existing 4-inch delivery tap, located

at milepost 0.18 on TGPL's Maiden Lateral in Lincoln County, North

Carolina, which will be used by Piedmont to receive up to 750 Mcf of

gas per day into its distribution system on a firm and interruptible

basis. TGPL asserts it will not alter the authorized firm

transportation service entitlement for Piedmont. TGPL states it has

sufficient system delivery flexibility to accomplish these deliveries

without any detriment to its other customers. TGPL indicates that the

operation of this delivery point is not prohibited by its FERC Gas

Tariff.

TGPL states that the facilities necessary to make this tap

operational will consist of tie-in piping between the existing tap and

Piedmont's facilities. TGPL further states that this tie-in piping will

be constructed pursuant to Sec. 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations

and will cost an estimated $10,000.

Comment date: May 27, 1994, in accordance with Standard Paragraph G

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, DC

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 Sec. 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 94-9474 Filed 4-19-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P