[¶ 61,347] Bayou Interstate Pipeline System, Docket No. RP91-96-000 Letter Order (Issued March 22, 1991) By Direction of the Commission: Lois D. Cashell, Secretary. This is to advise you that Bayou is granted an extension of time until July 1, 1991 to file to comply with the requirements of § 154.303(e), of the Commission's regulations. The Commission has found good cause to grant waiver given the unique facts of this case. If the Commission ultimately grants Bayou's application for abandonment, any amount of time and expense incurred, prior to that approval, by Bayou, the Commission staff or Intervenors would be squandered and there would be no benefit realized by any party involved, including the ratepayer. In addition, Bayou would cease to be a natural gas company as defined by the NGA. Notices of intervention and unopposed timely filed motions to intervene are granted pursuant to the operation of Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. § 385.214). Any opposed or untimely filed motion to intervene is governed by the provisions of Rule 214. This acceptance for filing shall not be construed as a waiver of the requirements of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended; nor shall it be construed as constituting approval of the referenced filing or of any rate, charge, classification, or any rule, regulation or practice affecting such rate or service contained in your tariff; nor shall such acceptance be deemed as recognition of any claimed contractual right or obligation associated therewith; and such acceptance is without prejudice to any findings or orders which have been or may hereafter be made by the Commission in any proceeding now pending or hereafter instituted by or against your company. [¶ 61,348] El Paso Natural Gas Company, Docket Nos. RP90-153-001 and RP90-153-003 Letter Order (Issued March 22, 1991) By Direction of the Commission: Lois D. Cashell, Secretary. El Paso Natural Gas Company's (El Paso) Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 250 and the workpapers and data responses filed on September 17, 1990, are found to be in satisfactory compliance with the Commission's order of August 31, 1990 [52 FERC ¶ 61,227], in the referenced docket. The tariff sheets comprising El Paso's February 1, 1991 Motion Filing and listed in Appendix A are also found to be in satisfactory compliance with that order. The tariff sheets listed in Appendix A are accepted for filing to be effective February 1, 1991, subject to refund. Further, in accordance with Ordering Paragraph (A) of the August 31, 1990 order, these tariff sheets are subject to the final outcome of El Paso's pending settlement in Docket No. RP88-44-000 et al.; subject to the Commission's final order in Docket No. CP88-332-000 et al., and subject to the final Commission order concerning the technical conference established in Arkla Energy Resources, Inc., 50 FERC ¶ 61,366 (1990). Notices of intervention and unopposed timely filed motions to intervene are granted pursuant to the operation of Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. § 385.214). Any opposed or untimely filed motion to intervene is governed by the provisions of Rule 214. A protest to the September 17, 1990 compliance filing was filed by Indicated Shippers incorporating by reference an earlier protest and request for rehearing of the suspension order, and reserving the right to supplement it further as result of the technical conference established by the suspension order. Because Indicated Shippers' protest will be addressed on rehearing of the suspension order, the protest will not be addressed at this time. A protest to the February 1, 1991 motion filing was filed by Arizona Public Service Company, Phelps Dodge Corporation and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Arizona). Arizona's protest is essentially a restatement of its protest to El Paso's August 1, 1990 filing. That protest was addressed and rejected by the Commission in the August 31 order. Arizona again seeks clarification that the contemplated change in the point of sale of IS gas will not alter the currently effective scheduling and capacity curtailment priorities for both interruptible sales and transportation services as currently set forth in El Paso's tariff. Arizona states that absent such clarification the currently effective tariff provisions would permit IS gas to obtain a higher scheduling and capacity curtailment priority than it currently enjoys, which would result in a degradation in the quality of interruptible transportation available to El Paso's smaller customers located upstream of and east of the bigger California customers. Further, Arizona believes that if the Commission were to allow the tariff sheets to be placed into effect February 1, 1991, such action would unduly prejudice Arizona's pending rehearing request, which is stated above, in El Paso's IS certificate proceeding in Docket No. CP88-332-003. Accordingly, Arizona requests that the Commission reject the instant tariff sheets without prejudice to a final Commission order addressing the issues raised on rehearing in that proceeding. Arizona's protest will be addressed in the Commission's order on the settlement in Docket No. RP88-44-000 et al. This acceptance for filing shall not be construed as a waiver of the requirements of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended; nor shall it be construed as constituting approval of the referenced filing or of any rate, charge, classification, or any rule, regulation, or practice affecting such rate or service contained in your tariff; nor shall such acceptance be deemed as recognition of any claimed contractual right or obligation associated therewith; and such acceptance is without prejudice to any findings or orders which have been or may hereafter be made by the Commission in any proceeding now pending or hereafter instituted by or against your company. Appendix A El Paso Natural Gas Company Docket No. RP90-153-003 List of Tariff Sheets to be Effective February Ferc Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1 [¶ 61,349] Florida Gas Transmission Company, Docket No. RP91-88-000 (Issued March 22, 1991) By Direction of the Commission: Lois D. Cashell, Secretary. Reference: Petition for Authorization to Waive Scheduling Penalties for November and December 1990. This is to advise you that the Petition, referenced above, is hereby granted. Specifically, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) is authorized to waive the scheduling penalties incurred by shippers during the months of November and December 1990, under section 15.1 of FGT's FTS-1 Rate Schedule, section 14.1 of FGT's PTS-1 Rate Schedule and section 13.1 of FGT's ITS Rate Schedule. In addition, the Commission notes that this is the fourth request for waiver filed by FGT, and the fifth month that such conditions have existed on FGT's system. We note that FGT has stated its intent to begin to impose penalties with January's transportation activities. On August 1, 1990, FGT commenced openaccess transportation service pursuant to its blanket certificate issued by the Commission in Docket No. RP89-50 et al. Because many ship pers and suppliers were confronted with openaccess transportation for the first time, coordination of scheduling during August through December was difficult. However, despite efforts by the shippers to meet delivery requirements, some deliveries to FGT's system varied by more than the four percent tolerance level. However, the variances were only $10,133 for the month of November 1990, and, although not calculated, should be minor in December. No protests were filed in opposition to this Petition. Notices of intervention and unopposed timely filed motions to intervene are granted, pursuant to operation of Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. § 385.214). Any opposed or untimely filed motion to intervene is governed by the provisions of Rule 214. This letter order is without prejudice to any finding or orders which have been made or which may hereafter be made by the Commis |