In the November 1 order, the Commission further explained why preparation of an EA, or EIS, is not appropriate in a QF proceeding: The Commission's regulations do not contemplate, let alone expressly require, the preparation of an environmental document for a particular facility since QF certification only establishes eligibility for PURPA benefits; that is, the regulations do not contemplate preparation of an environmental document because neither the regulations nor an order granting certification authorizes construction or relieves a facility of any other requirements of local, state or federal law involving siting, construction, operation, licensing or pollution abatement. The Commission's QF program, while aimed at encouraging QF development by providing certain rate benefits and relaxed regulatory requirements, was not and is not intended to preempt any other federal, state, or local law including any law involving pollution abatement applicable to QFs. [Footnotes omitted].14 Moreover, as to the NHPA specifically, we explained in the November 1 order that given the nature and the narrow scope of Commission action in a QF certification proceeding, the Commission was not required in such a pro ceeding to initiate procedures under the NHPA.15 Nothing that Citizens have presented persuades us that this determination was incorrect, or that we now should institute procedures under the NHPA. Citizens also argue that express Commission QF certification is required in this case for the project to proceed. However, these certification requirements are imposed by contractual arrangements among the parties involved in the project. A voluntary contractual agreement to obtain express Commission QF certification simply does not transform an optional QF certification procedure, which on its own does not require NEPA or NHPA procedures, into a mandatory statutory or regulatory requirement triggering NEPA or the NHPA. As explained in the November 1 order and as discussed above, a Commission QF certification proceeding is not the proper forum for determining a facility's potential impact on its surroundings, from either an environmental or an historical perspective. Accordingly, we will deny Citizens' request for rehearing. The Commission orders: 16 Citizens' request for rehearing is hereby denied. [¶ 61,059] Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, Docket Nos. CP91-890-000, Order Granting Requests for Waiver (Issued January 24, 1991) Before Commissioners: Martin L. Allday, Chairman; Charles A. Trabandt, On January 10, 1991, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company (Algonquin) filed petitions for waiver of section 284.223(a) of the Commission's regulations in the above dockets. Section 284.223(a) provides interstate pipelines that have accepted a blanket certificate under section 284.221 of the Commission's regulations with automatic authorization to commence transportation service on behalf of any shipper 14 53 FERC at p. 61,587, quoting Virginia Turbo. We note that the same logic applies equally to NHPA procedures. 15 See 53 FERC at pp. 61,587-88. 16 Citizens note that more qualifying facilities have been constructed than the Commission had originally anticipated when it performed its earlier environmental review, and argue that the Commission should prepare a supplemental EIS. This proceeding, for a term of 120 days. The 120-day term may be extended indefinitely if the transporting pipeline complies with the prior notice requirements of section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations. The prior notice requirement is satisfied if no protests are filed after issuance of notice by the Commission.2 Section 157.205(e) establishes a 45-day notice period for such protests. Algonquin instituted transportation services pursuant to section 284.223(a) for the following shippers and filed prior notice requests on Jan Docket No. CP91-890-000 CP91-891-000 CP91-892-000 CP91-893-000 CP91-894-000 CP91-895-000 Shipper Seagull Marketing Services, Inc. Fina Oil and Chemical Company uary 10, 1991, for authorization of the services as set forth in the following table: Meridian Marketing and Transmission Company The self-implementing transportation portion of these transactions will expire before the end of the 45-day comment period for these prior notice requests. Therefore, Algonquin requests that the Commission waive its regulations by extending the 120-day limit in section 284.223(a). We find that the potential hardship inherent in interrupting the ongoing transportation services outweighs the potential benefit of strict adherence to the 120-day limitation in section 284.223(a)(1) of the regulations. The Commission orders: Service Commenced 10-4-90 10-12-90 10-4-90 9-27-90 10-1-90 10-1-90 The 120-day limitation in section 284.223(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations is waived to the extent necessary to permit Algonquin to continue the transportation activities described in these petitions without interruption until 45 days after the date notices were issued in these proceedings in accordance with section 157.205 of the regulations. [¶ 61,060] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Docket Nos. CP87-389-005, CP88-225-003, CP88-759-004, CP89-1582-001, CP90-12-001, CP90-989-001, and CP90-1380-001 Order Dismissing, in Part, Requests for Rehearing (Issued January 25, 1991) Before Commissioners: Martin L. Allday, Chairman; Charles A. Trabandt, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) filed in Docket Nos. CP87-389-005, CP88-225-003, CP88-759-004, CP90-12-001, CP90-1380-001 timely requests for rehearing of the Commission's orders issued in Docket Nos. CP87-389-003,1 CP88-225-002,2 CP88-759-003,3 CP90-12-000, CP90-989-0015 and CP90-1380-000, respectively. In those orders, the Commission authorized National Fuel, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to transport natural gas for various shippers on an interruptible basis. The orders limited the duration of the certificates to the earlier of six months from the date of issuance of the certificate or until National Fuel accepted a section 284.221 blanket certifi cate. 1 48 FERC 61,116 (1989). 2 47 FERC 61,122 (1989). 349 FERC 62,250 (1989). 449 FERC 61,304 (1989). 551 FERC 62,265 (1990). On rehearing in the above-captioned dockets, with the exception of Docket No. CP89-1582-001, National Fuel seeks to eliminate the six-month term limitation imposed on the section 7(c) transportation certificates, which it claims constitutes arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, and also the blanket certificate condition, which it argues runs contrary to the voluntary nature of the openaccess program under Order No. 436 [FERC Statutes and Regulations, Regulations Preambles 1982-1985 ¶ 30,665]. In addition, in Docket No. CP90-989-001, National Fuel seeks to amend the order to provide continued transportation authority for a sixty-day transition period following National Fuel's acceptance of a blanket transportation certificate and to authorize use of its Wharton, Pennsylvania delivery point without term limitation. 652 FERC ¶ 62,124 (1990). 7 These dockets represent requests for authorization for over 600 individual transportation transactions. In Docket No. CP89-1582-001, National Fuel filed a timely request for rehearing of the Commission's July 28, 1989 order issued in Docket No. CP89-1582-0008 granting National Fuel a Part 284 blanket transportation certificate. That order also deferred action on National Fuel's proposed gas inventory charge (GIC). National Fuel did not accept that blanket certificate. Further, National Fuel filed a request for rehearing on several issues, including the Commission's deferral of action on the pipeline's GIC proposal. In September 1989, the Commission issued an order tolling action on all issues raised in National Fuel's rehearing request pending further consideration. On November 1, 1990, the Commission issued an order9 in Docket No. RP86-136-000 et al. approving with modification a settlement proposal and granting National Fuel a blanket transportation certificate under terms and conditions consistent with its approval of that settlement. On December 3, 1990, National Fuel filed to accept that blanket transportation certificate. On December 7, 1990, the Commission issued an order10 in Docket No. CP90-989-002 et al. which, consistent with the terms of the November 1, 1990 order approving National Fuel's settlement proposal in Docket No. RP86-136-000 et al., extended National Fuel's authorized term for all transportation transactions at issue for 60 days to prevent an interruption of service during the transition to blanket certificate transportation.11 In view of the above, National Fuel's rehearing requests are moot, except with respect to National Fuel's rehearing request in Docket No. CP89-1582-001 regarding its GIC proposal and its rehearing request in Docket No. CP90-989-001 regarding use of its Wharton, Pennsylvania delivery point. Upon acceptance of the blanket certificate by National Fuel, the certificates of which National Fuel seeks rehearing expired by their own terms. Further, the blanket certificate issued to, and accepted by, National Fuel provides the pipeline with full authority necessary to perform the transportation service requested in the above-captioned dockets. 12 Case-specific authorization remains an option only so long as the pipeline foregoes blanket certification or where significant new construction is involved. Once blanket authorization is selected, supernumerary authorization will not be granted for transportation service that may be performed pursuant to blanket authority. The Commission orders: (A) The requests for rehearing filed by National Fuel in Docket Nos. CP87-389-005, CP88-225-003, CP88-759-004, CP90-12-001, and CP90-1380-001 are dismissed as moot. (B) The request for rehearing filed by National Fuel in Docket No. CP89-1582-001 is dismissed as moot except with respect to National Fuel's GIC proposal. (C) The request for rehearing filed by National Fuel in Docket No. CP90-989-001 is dismissed as moot except with respect to National Fuel's rehearing request regarding its use of the Wharton delivery point. [¶ 61,061] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Docket Nos. TA91-1-16-000, Order Accepting and Rejecting Tariff Sheets, Denying Request for Waiver, and (Issued January 25, 1991) Before Commissioners: Martin L. Allday, Chairman; Charles A. Trabandt, On October 31, 1990, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) filed a tariff 8 48 FERC 61,128 (1989). 953 FERC 61,157 (1990). 10 53 FERC 62,226 (1990). 11 National Fuel has accepted the Order Amending Certificate issued on December 7, 1990 in Docket No. CP90-989-002 et al. 12 See Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 43 FERC 61,042 (1988), rehearing denied, 44 FERC sheet reflecting its annual purchased gas adjustment (PGA), and an increase in the Gas ¶ 61,094 (1988), petition for review denied, Tennessee v. FERC, No. 88-1688 (D.C. Cir. March 23, 1990). See also Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 43 FERC 61,446 (1988). 1 Fortieth Revised Sheet No. 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. Research Institute (GRI) surcharge, to become effective on January 1, 1991, in Docket Nos. TA91-1-16-000 and TM91-3-16-000, respectively. In its October 31 filing, National Fuel seeks to flowthrough on an as-billed basis certain producer demand charges. Subsequently, on November 30, 1990, in Docket No. TA91-1-16-002, National Fuel filed an amendment to its annual PGA filing to update its commodity current adjustments and its surcharge adjustment. The November 30 filing also reflects: (1) the alternate treatment of Canadian purchased gas costs proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) in its current annual PGA, filed in Docket No. TA91-1-9-000, and (2) Tennessee's alternative proposals in Docket No. RP91-29-000 et al., including its primary proposal, which included a volumetric take-or-pay funding surcharge. As discussed more fully below, the Commission will accept the updated tariff sheet filed on November 30, 1990, reject other, alternate tariff sheets also filed on that date, and deny National Fuel's request for waiver of the Commission's regulations to flowthrough on an asbilled basis the producer demand charges. The Filings October 31, 1990 National Fuel's October 31, 1990 tariff sheet reflects the base tariff rates filed on October 19, 1989 in Docket No. RP90-14-000. Prior to being updated by the November 30, 1990 filing, the October 31 tariff sheet reflected a current demand adjustment of 35.0 cents per Dth and a commodity current adjustment of 9.23 cents per Dth above that contained in National Fuel's previous quarterly PGA filing in Docket No. TQ91-1-16-001, filed on October 5, 1990. The tariff filing also contained a 12.71 cents per Dth negative commodity surcharge and eliminated National Fuel's prior negative demand surcharge, and instituted a 98.0 cents per Dth demand surcharge. In addition, the October 31, 1990 filing, as well as the November 30, 1990 filing, reflects a revised GRI adjustment of 1.42 cents per Dth for Rate Schedules CD, RQ, SI, I-1, and GSS, and a GRI adjustment of 1.47 cents per Dth for Rate Schedule T-1. 2 On November 16, 1990, National Fuel filed certain supplemental information in Docket No. TA91-1-16-001. 318 C.F.R. § 154.305(b)(1) (1990). 4 National Fuel identified these two gas purchase agreements in supplemental information that it filed on November 16, 1990 in Docket No. TA91-1-16-001 in response to an informal data request by the Commission's staff. In its October 31 filing, National Fuel requested waiver of section 154.305(b)(1)3 of the Commission's regulations to permit the flowthrough of producer demand charges on an as-billed basis. National Fuel states that its filing reflects on an as-billed basis, certain producer demand charges to be paid to nonaffiliated producers to obtain gas supply commitments in support of its conversion from sales customer to shipper on several of its upstream pipelines. For the current PGA quarter (January 1 through March 31, 1991), National Fuel projects to pay nonpipeline demand charges of $459,755, resulting from sales contracts with Tejas Power Corporation (Tejas) and Transco Energy Marketing Company (Temco). National Fuel proposes to recover these demand charges from its jurisdictional sales customers on an as-billed basis. These costs are included as part of National Fuel's demand rate and have the effect of increasing the RQ and CD demand rate by 13 cents per Dth and lowering the RQ and CD commodity rate by 0.71 cent per Dth. National Fuel also includes in its reported gas costs for the months of April through August 1990 gas inventory charge payments of $2,987,165 made to Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Tetco). Additionally, in calculating its surcharge for unrecovered gas purchase costs, National Fuel includes a $13.7 million contract demand adjustment by Tennessee. November 30, 1990 In its November 30, 1990 filing, National Fuel filed a revised Fortieth Revised Sheet No. 4,5 which updates the current adjustment shown in National Fuel's annual PGA filed on October 31, 1990, as permitted by section 154.305(c)(4) of the Commission's regulations. The November 30 tariff filing also revises the commodity deferred account surcharge adjustments to reflect the recalculated carrying charges on National Fuel's Account No. 191 balance resulting from the elimination of the storage revaluation adjustment, as permitted under National Fuel's settlement in Docket No. RP86-136 et al. National Fuel requests waiver of the 60-day notice period as set forth 5 Substitute Fortieth Revised Sheet No. 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. (Primary tariff sheet) 6 18 C.F.R. § 154.305(c)(4) (1990). 61,157 (1990). On December 21, 1990, National Fuel filed in Docket No. TA91-1-16-003 to incorporate into the subject filing the base tariff rates established under the settlement in Docket No. RP86-136 et al., and the new tariff sheet pagination resulting from its December 3, 1990 compliance filing in Docket No. RP86-136-010 et al. 1 in section 154.305 of the Commission's regulations, to permit its November 30, 1990 filing to go into effect on the January 1, 1991 effective date. National Fuel's November 30, 1990 PGA filing consists of the following adjustments: For Rate Schedules CD and RQ: (1) a $0.33 per Dth increase in the demand charge; (2) a $0.1015 per Dth increase in the commodity cost; (3) a $0.0459 per Dth increase in the commodity deferred account surcharge, from ($0.1718) to ($0.1259), to return $17,957,699 in overcollected costs in Account No. 191; and (4) a $0.98 per Dth demand surcharge to collect $13,637,045 in undercollected demand gas costs. For Rate Schedules SI, I-1, and GSS: (1) a $0.1123 per Dth increase in the commodity cost; and (2) a $0.0866 per Dth increase in the deferred account surcharge, from ($0.1803) to ($0.0937). The filing reflects a current estimated average unit cost of gas of $2.9306 per Dth based upon total commodity projected gas costs of $189,962,226 and projected sales for the period of 64,821,000 Dth. The company utilizes a unit-of-sales methodology. In addition to its revised primary tariff sheet - Substitute Fortieth Revised Sheet No. 4 — National Fuel also submitted in its November 30 filing, three alternate tariff sheets to reflect the alternate treatment of producer demand charges proposed by Tennessee in its annual PGA, filed in Docket No. TA91-1-9-000.9 The alternate tariff sheets also reflect Tennessee's alternate proposals in Docket No. RP91-29-000 et al. National Fuel's primary tariff sheet reflects a current adjustment of 10.15 cents per Dth to the commodity rate and $ 0.33 to the demand rate, and assumes the Commission will deny Tennessee's as-billed treatment of producer (Footnote Continued) The Commission will address the December 21, 1990 filing in a separate order. 8 First Alternate Substitute Fortieth Revised Sheet No. 4, Second Alternate Substitute Fortieth Revised Sheet No. 4, and Third Alternate Substitute Fortieth Revised Sheet No. 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. 9 In Docket No. TA91-1-9-000, Tennessee proposed to annualize certain of its Canadian demand charges, which are classified to its gas commodity charge pursuant to the methodology adopted in Opinion Nos. 256 [37 FERC 61,215] and 256-A [39 demand charges and reject the take-or-pay volumetric surcharge. The First Alternate sheet reflects a current adjustment of 19.40 cents per Dth to the commodity rate and $ 0.33 to the demand rate, and assumes the Commission will deny as-billed treatment, but permit the volumetric surcharge. The Second Alternate sheet reflects a current adjustment of 6.22 cents per Dth to the commodity rate and $ 0.47 to the demand rate, and assumes the Commission will permit as-billed treatment, but deny the volumetric surcharge. The Third Alternate sheet reflects a current adjustment of 9.63 cents per Dth to the commodity rate and $0.47 to the demand rate, and assumes approval of both the as-billed treatment and the take-or-pay volumetric surcharge. As in the October 31, 1990 filing, these adjustments are calculated based upon a comparison with the rates included in National Fuel's most recent quarterly PGA filing in Docket No. TQ91-1-16-001. Public Notice, Interventions, and Protests Public notice of the filings in Docket Nos. TA91-1-16-000 and TM91-3-16-000 was issued on November 6, 1990, providing for protests, motions, or notices to intervene to be filed on or before November 26, 1990. Public notice of the filing in Docket No. TA91-1-16-002 was issued on December 6, 1990, providing for protests, motions, or notices to intervene to be filed on or before December 13, 1990. Timely notices or motions to intervene were filed by the parties listed in the Appendix to this order. Pursuant to Rule 214 (18 C.F.R. § 385.214 (1990)), any timely filed motions to intervene are granted unless an answer in opposition is filed within 15 days of the date such motion is filed. Any timely filed motions or notices not listed in the Appendix are also granted in accordance with the conditions of Rule 214. Three parties filed protests - Elizabethtown Gas Company (Elizabethtown), The Algonquin Customer Group (Algonquin), 10 and The Public FERC 61,218], to ensure an even distribution of these costs on a per unit basis. On December 28, 1990, the Commission approved Tennessee's proposed treatment of Canadian demand costs. 53 FERC ¶ 61,463 (1990). 10 The Algonquin Customer Group is comprised of: Bay State Gas Company; Boston Gas Company; Bristol and Warren Gas Company; Colonial Gas Company; Commonwealth Gas Company; Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation, Fall River Gas Company; Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.; Town of Middleborough, Municipal Gas and Electric Department; |