tions. Equitable Gas, states that it is a Hinshaw pipeline with two separate distribution systems subject to regulation by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PPUC) and the West Virginia Public Service Commission and that all of the gas it receives within or at the boundary of West Virginia and Pennsylvania is consumed within the respective state.1

Equitable Gas is required pursuant to section 284.224(c)(7) of the Commission's regulations to provide in its application for a blanket certificate both a statement of the methodology to be used in calculating rates for services to be rendered and a sample calculation employing the methodology using current data. Equitable Gas proposes initial maximum transportation rates of $0.7948 per Mcf and $0.6965 per Mcf in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, respectively, calculated in accordance with section 284.123(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's regulations. Further, since blanket certificate authorization under section 284.224 permits the sale or assignment in addition to the transportation of gas, any sales by Equitable Gas pursuant to the blanket certificate authority granted herein should be made at rates permitted under section 284.144.

Any transportation, sale, or assignment of natural gas under the authorization granted herein would be in interstate commerce, subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, and would be, therefore, subject to the requirements of subsections (c) and (e) of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.,,

After due notice by publication in the Federal Register on January 24, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 2760), Equitrans, Inc., and the Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania and Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia filed timely motions to intervene.3 The PPUC filed a timely notice of intervention. No further motions to intervene, notices of inter

vention, or protests to the granting of the application have been filed.

At a hearing held on February 8, 1991, there was received and made a part of the record in this proceeding all evidence, including the application and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of the authorization sought herein. Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 C.F.R. § 375.307, it is ordered:

(A) A certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued authorizing Equitable Gas to engage in the sale, transportation, or assignment of natural gas that is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act to the same extent and in the same manner that intrastate pipelines are authorized to engage in such activities by subparts (C), (D), and (E) of Part 284 of the Commission's regulations.

(B) The certificate issued by Ordering Paragraph (A) above and the rights granted thereunder are conditioned upon Equitable Gas' compliance with all applicable Commission regulations under the Natural Gas Act and particularly the general terms and conditions set forth in paragraphs (a) and (e) of section 157.20 of such regulations. Further, the authorization granted herein is subject to all the terms and conditions in section 284.224 of the Commission's regulations.

(C) Equitable Gas shall charge a transportation rate as permitted under section 284.123(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's regula

tions.

(D) Equitable Gas shall charge a rate for sales hereunder, as permitted under section 284.144 of the Commission's regulations.

(E) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713.

1 Equitable Gas also operates distribution facilities in Kentucky but contemplates performing section 284.224 services only in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

tric Project, FERC Project No. 3939, filed an

2 Equitable Gas will retain 2.8 and 3.4 percent of delivered volumes for shrinkage in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, respectively.

3 Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are granted by operation of Rule 214.

On December 7, 1990, The Connecticut National Bank (Applicant) of Hartford, Connecticut, filed an application with the Commission for recertification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to section 292.207 of the Commission's regulations. The instant recertification is requested due to a change in ownership from Altresco Pittsfield, L.P. to The Connecticut National Bank. Notice of the application was published in the Federal Register with comments, protests or motions to intervene due on or before January 23, 1991.2 No comments, protests or motions to intervene have been filed.

Applicant states that, no electric utility, electric utility holding company or any combination thereof has any ownership interest in the facility. The facility thus satisfies the criteria set forth in section 292.206 of the Commission's regulations.

Based on information provided by the Applicant, the facility continues to satisfy the operating and efficiency standards established in section 292.205 of the Commission's regulations.

It is found that:

Based on the information provided by the Applicant, the facility meets the requirement established in section 292.206(b) of the Commission's regulations regarding ownership criteria.

It is ordered:

The application for recertification of qualify ing status filed on December 7, 1990, by The Connecticut National Bank, pursuant to section 292.207 of the Commission's regulations and section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 201 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, is hereby granted provided that the facility is owned and operated in the manner described in the application.3

Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Division of Applications, pursuant to section 375.308 of the Commission's regulations.

This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. section 385.713.

P. Bushey.

On December 3, 1990, Endicott Pipeline Company (EPC) submitted a request for approval of the continued use of the unit of throughput depreciation methodology for purposes of calculating its cost of service allowance for depreciation. This request was made pursuant to paragraph six of the Stipulation and Agreement (Stipulation) executed by the participants in Docket No. IS87-36-000 on May 27, 1988.

The Stipulation provides, inter alia, that EPC will use a unit of throughput (UOT)

The original certification was issued on January 14, 1988, (42 FERC ¶ 62,021).

255 Fed. Reg. 52,873 (1990).

3 Certification as a qualifying facility serves only to establish eligibility for benefits provided by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as implemented by the Commission's Regulations, 18 ¶ 62,093

depreciation methodology to calculate its depreciation expense for cost-of-service purposes for the years 1987-1990, and that a total throughput of 355 million barrels will be incorporated into that methodology. The Stipulation also provides that, from January 1, 1991 and every three years thereafter, the reasonableness of that depreciation methodology will be subject to review and adjustment, and refunds will be ordered (if applicable) from January 1 to reflect such adjustments.

C.F.R. Part 292. It does not relieve a facility of any other requirements of local, state or federal law, including those regarding siting, construction, operation, licensing and pollution abatement. Certification does not establish any property rights, resolve competing claims for a site, or authorize construction.

In its December 3, 1990 request, EPC seeks permission to continue to use the UOT methodology to calculate its depreciation expense. EPC contends that the circumstances that supported use of a UOT methodology in the past still prevail. More specifically, even though the total throughput estimate has now increased to 394 million barrels, EPC alleges that it continues to depend primarily upon production from a single reservoir. As a result, EPC calculated a depreciation expense beginning in 1991 of $5,446,444, based upon a UOT methodology, a total throughput of 394 million barrels and a corresponding daily throughput of almost 109,000 barrels.

In a response submitted to the Oil Pipeline Board (Board) on December 13, 1990, staff recommended that the Board refer EPC's request to the presiding administrative law judge in the ongoing proceeding in Docket No. IS87-36-000 for further discovery and hearing procedures, as deemed appropriate.

Based upon a review of the pleadings as well as the underlying Stipulation, it would appear that the parties' intent was for the effectiveness of EPC's periodic depreciation expense proposals (and their concomitant effect on rates) to be suspended and made subject to refund pending the triennial redetermination as to the proper depreciation methodology and reserve estimates.

However, EPC's initial tariff filing, which became effective October 2, 1987, is still subject to refund pending the outcome of Docket No. IS87-36-000. The case is currently awaiting an Initial Decision from the presiding administrative law judge. As a result, there is no need to further suspend the effectiveness of the instant filing. Given these circumstances, the Board will refer this matter to the presiding judge for appropriate discovery procedures and, if necessary, a hearing.

The Board orders:

(A) The request of EPC for approval of the continued use of a unit of throughput depreciation methodology is referred to the presiding administrative law judge in Docket No. IS87-36-000 for further discovery and hearing procedures, as deemed appropriate. At the culmination of this process, the presiding judge shall determine an appropriate depreciation methodology and expense for EPC from and after January 1, 1991.

(B) For purposes of calculating a tariff rate for EPC from and after January 1, 1991, said rate should incorporate the depreciation expense that results from the matter prescribed in Ordering Paragraph (A) above.

Project Description

The Burnham Hydro Project, a run-of-river project, consists of: (1) a reservoir with an estimated 250-acre surface area; (2) an existing 208-foot-long, 27-foot-high concrete gravity spillway, with provisions for 52-inch-high flashboards; (3) a 14-foot-diameter steel penstock; (4) a brick-faced powerhouse, containing three turbine generating units having a total capacity of 1,050 kilowatts; and (5) appurtenant facilities.

Jurisdiction

Pursuant to section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §817(1) (1982), a nonfederal hydroelectric project must (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) be licensed if it:

(1) is located on a navigable water of the United States;

(2) occupies lands of the United States; (3) utilizes surplus water or water power from a government dam; or

(4) is located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, project construction occurred on or after August 26, 1935, and the project affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.

The Burnham Hydro Project does not occupy any public lands or reservations of the United States and does not use surplus water or water