Crossroads Pipeline Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate Filings

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP94-342-004, et al.]

Crossroads Pipeline Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate

Filings

August 24, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings have been made with the

Commission:

1. Crossroads Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP94-342-004]

Take notice that on August 21, 1995, Crossroads Pipeline Company

(Crossroads), 801 East 86th Avenue, Merrillville, Indiana 46410, filed

in Docket No. CP94-342-004 as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original

Volume No. 1, Substitute Original Tariff Sheet No. 6.

Crossroads states that Substitute Original Tariff Sheet No. 6

reflects the recalculation of certain cost-of-service items. In

addition, Crossroads states that the tariff sheet reflects a reduction

in Crossroads' proposed maximum commodity charge for firm service and a

reduction in Crossroads' minimum reservation charge for firm service.

Comment date: September 14, 1995, in accordance with the first

paragraph of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

2. Paiute Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP95-614-000]

Take notice that on July 13, 1995, Paiute Pipeline Company

(Paiute), P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197, filed in Docket

No. CP95-614-000, an application pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural

Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations requesting

authorization to construct and operate truck unloading facilities at

its Lovelock, Nevada liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility to

permit the delivery for injection to the storage facility of LNG by

truck, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file

with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Paiute states that the installation of the facilities will provide

its LNG storage service customers with additional options for helping

to meet their peak demand, emergency, or other requirements. Paiute

further states that the truck unloading facilities will permit year-

round deliveries to the LNG storage facility, irrespective of whether

the plant itself is being operated in a liquefaction, vaporization, or

holding mode. Paiute claims that its LNG storage facility, as it is

presently constructed and operated, cannot be operated in a

liquefaction mode and a vaporization mode simultaneously.

Paiute states that the estimated cost of the truck unloading

facilities is $238,500. Paiute intends to finance the cost of

construction through ongoing regular financing programs and internally

generated funds.

In addition, Paiute requests that the Commission grant temporary

certificate authorization for the construction and operation of the

proposed truck unloading facilities, due to the especially urgent need

for such facilities, so that such facilities can be constructed and

placed into service by November 1, 1995 or as soon thereafter as

possible. Paiute indicates that because of a need to empty the storage

tank for maintenance purposes, Paiute's LNG storage service customers

likely will not have sufficient opportunity to fully replenish their

LNG supplies before November 1, 1995. As an alternative to the

temporary certificate authority, Paiute further requests that the

Commission use expedited procedures leading to the issuance of a final

certificate order by September 15, 1995 or earlier.

Paiute states that with the installation of the truck unloading

facilities, Paiute's customers will be assured of having a means to

replenish their supplies of LNG in storage during the winter heating

season, when the plant is generally in a vaporization mode, and augment

the quantities of gas being liquefied during the summer months, if

necessary.

Comment date: September 14, 1995, in accordance with Standard

Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

3. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP95-696-000]

Take notice that on August 21, 1995, Williston Basin Interstate

Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), Suite 300, 200 North Third Street,

Bismarck, North Dakota 58501, filed in Docket No. CP95-696-000 a

request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for

authorization to construct and operate a metering station under

Williston Basin's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-1-000

pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request that is on file with the

[[Page 45407]]

Commission and open to public inspection.

Williston Basin proposes to construct and operate a new metering

station to provide transportation service gas to Rainbow Gas Company in

Ramsey County, North Dakota. The station will consist of a tap, meter

and regulator and miscellaneous gauges and valves.

Comment date: October 10, 1995, in accordance with Standard

Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

4. Northern Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP95-698-000]

Take notice that on August 21, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company

(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed

in Docket No. CP95-698-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and

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

CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to construct and operate a new

delivery point under Northern's blanket certificate issued in Docket

No. CP82-401-000 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.1

\1\ This filing supersedes the request filed in Docket No. CP95-

629-000 in order to reflect a new location for the proposed delivery

point. Under separate cover, Northern filed on August 21, 1995, to

withdraw its application in Docket No. CP95-629-000.

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

Northern proposes to install and operate a new delivery point (Al-

Corn/Al-Corn #1 TBS) in Dodge County, Minnesota, to accommodate natural

gas deliveries to Al-Corn Clean Fuels, Inc. (Al-Corn), for use at their

plant near Claremont, Minnesota. Northern states that service would be

provided to Al-Corn under a transportation agreement pursuant to

Northern's existing transportation schedules. It is stated that the

proposal involves the delivery of up to 1,200 Mcf on a peak day and

438,000 Mcf on an annual basis. Northern estimates that the total cost

of constructing this delivery point would be $135,000.

Comment date: October 10, 1995, in accordance with Standard

Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

5. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

[Docket No. CP95-703-000]

Take notice that on August 22, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission

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

Virginia 25314-1599, filed a request with the Commission in Docket No.

CP95-703-000 pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.212 of the Commission's

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to modify an existing point

of delivery and reassign Maximum Daily Delivery Obligations (MDDOs)

between points of delivery to Shenandoah Gas Company (SGC), a

subsidiary of Washington Gas (WG) in Warren County, Virginia,

authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, all

as more fully set forth in the request on file with the Commission and

open to public inspection.

Columbia proposes to make modifications to the existing Nineveh

point of delivery at the request of SGC for additional firm

transportation service for residential, commercial and industrial

service. Columbia states that neither SGC nor WG has requested an

increase in Peak Day Entitlements in conjunction with this request to

modify the existing point of delivery so there would be no impact on

Columbia's existing peak day obligations to its other customers as a

result of the modifications. Columbia proposes, however, to reassign

the MDDOs by amending WG's SST Agreement by reducing the MDDOs at the

existing Dranesville delivery point by 12,300 Dth/day and reassigning

the same volumes of gas to the existing Nineveh delivery point proposed

to be modified. SGC has agreed to reimburse Columbia the cost of

construction to modify this point which would be approximately $23,969,

including gross-up for income tax purposes. Columbia would pay for the

install filter separators at an estimated cost of $90,000.

Comment date: October 10, 1995, in accordance with Standard

Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

6. NorAm Gas Transmission Company

[Docket No. CP95-704-000]

Take notice that on August 23, 1995, NorAm Gas Transmission Company

(NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No.

CP95-704-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.211 of the

Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,

157.211) for authorization to construct and operate certain delivery

facilities in Arkansas under NGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket

No. CP82-384-000, et al., 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.

NGT proposes to construct and operate the following facilities for

deliveries of natural gas to ARKLA, a division of NorAm Energy Corp.,

to serve its new domestic and commercial customers: (a) One 2-inch

delivery tap, first-cut regulator and 1-inch U-Shape meter station on

NGT's Line TM-10 to serve ARKLA's Rural Extension No. 1344 in Arkansas

County, Arkansas; (b) one 1-inch delivery tap and first cut regulator

on NGT's Line B to serve ARKLA's Conway Cox Cove Rural Extension in

Faulkner County, Arkansas. NGT estimates the volumes to be delivered

through the facilities to be 1,805 MMBtu annually and 82 MMBtu on a

peak day. In addition, NGT estimates the cost of construction to be

$5,144, of which ARKLA will reimburse NGT $3,715.

Comment date: October 10, 1995, 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, 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.

[[Page 45408]]

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. 95-21600 Filed 8-30-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P