timely, unopposed motions to intervene.1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Public Service) filed a motion to intervene out-of-time. The New England Customer Group (New England), Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed), Northern Illinois Gas Company (NI-Gas), and The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company (Peoples Gas) filed timely, unopposed motions to intervene and conditional protests. The Cities of Clarksville, Springfield, and Portland, Tennessee and the Humphreys County Utility District, Tennessee (Cities and the District) filed a motion to intervene and conditional protest out-of-time. New England, NI-Gas, Peoples Gas and Cities and the District filed conditional or limited protests requesting that the issue of the rate impact or cost shifting resulting from the partial abandonment of firm service to Columbia be reserved for decision in Tennessee's pending rate proceeding. Con Ed opposes a retroactive effective date unless the abandonment is conditioned to protect Tennessee's other customers from any adverse rate impacts. Con Ed would not object to the requested retroactive effective date provided that Tennessee is precluded from reflecting any rate impact until Tennessee files its next general rate case. After due notice by publication in the Federal Register on November 1, 1989 (54 Fed. Reg. 46,111), in Docket No. CP90-67-000, Elizabethtown Gas Company, Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Shenandoah Gas Company, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, AlliedSignal, Inc., Maryland Peoples Counsel, Long Island Lighting Company, Columbia, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., the Tennessee Small General Service Customer Group, CNG Transmission Corporation, Cities and the District, East Tennessee Group and The Peoples Gas, Light and Coke Company filed timely, unopposed motions to intervene. A timely unopposed motion to intervene and conditional protest was filed by New England. In its protest New England states that while it does not object to the proposed partial abandonment of service to Columbia, its does object to any cost shifting that may occur as a result of such partial abandonment. New England, therefore, requests that the Commission's order make clear that approval of the abandonment does not constitute authorization for Tennessee to shift to its other customers the costs formerly recovered from Columbia. New England states that whether Tennessee can recover the costs paid by Columbia from its other custom 1 Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are granted by operation of Rule 214. ers is a matter that can only be resolved in a rate proceeding. The rate impact resulting from the partial abandonments of service to Columbia can most appropriately be addressed in Tennessee's next rate proceeding. On January 17, 1990, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and on November 9, 1990, Cities and the District filed a motion requesting that the instant proceedings and the other Tennessee abandonment proceedings be held in abeyance pending the issuance of a final order on Tennessee's allocation of take-or-pay costs in Docket No. RP86-119-000 et al.2 Cities and the District also state that the Commission must find that the present or future public convenience or necessity permit the abandonment in view of the enormity of the take-or-pay costs on Tennessee's system. On November 26, 1990, Con Ed filed a motion in support of the motion filed by Cities and the District. The incurrence of take-or-pay costs is a matter for resolution in a company's rate proceeding. Tennessee currently has a pending rate case in Docket No. RP91-29-000 in which it seeks to recover such costs. Therefore, there is no need to hold this proceeding in abeyance pending the outcome of the rate proceeding. Public Service and the Cities and the District, as customers of Tennessee, have shown an interest in the proceeding. Further, since the untimely motions to intervene will not disrupt or delay the proceeding, they will be granted. At a hearing held on March 19, 1991, there was received and made a part of the record in these proceedings all evidence, including the applications and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of the authorizations sought herein. Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 C.F.R. § 375.307, it is ordered: (A) Permission for and approval of the partial abandonment by Tennessee of the sales service, hereinbefore described and as more fully described in the applications, are granted effective as of February 1, 1989, in Docket No. CP89-1253-000 and September 1, 1989, in Docket No. CP90-67-000. (B) The authorizations granted herein are conditioned upon Tennessee's compliance with all applicable Commission regulations under the Natural Gas Act and particularly the general terms and conditions set forth in Part 154. (C) Public Service and Cities and the District's motions to intervene in Docket No. CP89-1253-000 are granted. 2 Tennessee has filed a new proposal to allocate its take-or-pay costs in Docket No. RP91-29-000. (D) 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. [¶ 62,197] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Docket No. CP91-115-000; Order Approving Abandonments (Issued March 25, 1991) Kevin P. Madden, Director, Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation. On October 11, 1990, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) filed in Docket No. CP91-115-000 an application, as supplemented February 15, 1991, and on October 17, 1990, Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline), filed in Docket No. CP91-183-000 an application, as supplemented January 24, 1991, pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for permission and approval to abandon partially transportation of natural gas for Chevron Chemical Company (Chevron) under Natural's Rate Schedule X-139 and Trunkline's Rate Schedule T-96, all as more fully set forth in the applications. Natural and Trunkline are authorized to transport natural gas for Chevron under their respective rate schedules, X-139 and T-96, and a transportation agreement dated September 26, 1977, as amended January 11, 1985, in Docket No. CP85-316-000 and CP85-347-000.1 Under this agreement, Natural and Trunkline agreed to transport, on a firm basis, up to 10,000 Mcf per day of Chevron's gas which Chevron purchases from Chevron USA Inc., in West Cameron Blocks 532, 533, and 534, offshore Louisiana, using their respective capacity in the system of Stingray Pipeline Company (Stingray). Natural transports 75% of the total or up to 7,500 Mcf per day, and Trunkline transports the remaining 25% of the volumes or up to 2,500 Mcf per day. Natural and Trunkline receive the gas at points of interconnection between Chevron and Stingray at the inlet of Natural's measuring equipment on the production platforms offshore Louisiana. The gas is being redelivered to the onshore interconnection between Stingray and Natural in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Natural transports the total volume of gas to an interconnection with United Gas Pipe Line Company (United) at the Texaco Henry Plant in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana. United was authorized, 'See order issued on September 30, 1985, 32 FERC 62,719. 2 See United Gas Pipe Line Company, 32 FERC ¶ 62,719. in Docket No. CP85-261-000, to transport up to 30,000 Mcf of gas per day for Chevron from Vermilion Parish to St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 2 These transportation services had a term ending September 30, 1986. On December 12, 1985, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. CP85-316-001, 33 FERC ¶ 61,352, extending the term of the certificate issued September 30, 1985, to 15 years from the date of initial deliveries. On April 25, 1990, Chevron gave notice of its election to reduce the daily contract demand level from 10,000 Mcf to 5,000 Mcf commencing November 5, 1990. Such reduction would be for the remainder of the transportation agreement. In view of the above, Natural and Trunkline seek authority to reduce Chevron's daily contract demand level from 10,000 Mcf to 5,000 Mcf, pursuant to their respective rate schedules, Rate Schedule X-139 and Rate Schedule T-96, effective November 5, 1990. This would reduce Natural's daily obligation to transport gas volumes for Chevron from 7,500 Mcf to 3,750 Mcf and Trunkline's from 2,500 Mcf to 1,250 Mcf. Approval of Natural's request to abandon partially its transportation service for Chevron effective November 5, 1990, will provide Chevron relief from reservation charges paid to Natural. Likewise Trunkline's authorization will be made effective as of November 5, 1990. The Commission has the discretion to authorize abandonment retroactively in situations where equity requires it, as demonstrated in these proceedings.3 Granting permission for and approval of Natural's and Trunkline's abandonments would not constitute a major federal action having a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 3 See Valero Interstate Transmission Co. v. FERC, 903 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1990). Since the transportation of natural gas is in interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the abandonment thereof is subject to the requirements of subsection (b) of section 7 of the NGA. After due notice by publication in the Federal Register in Docket No. CP91-115-000, on October 26, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 43,164), Chevron filed an untimely motion to intervene. After due notice by publication in the Federal Register in Docket No. CP91-183-000, on October 31, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 45,842), Natural and Chevron filed timely motions to intervene.4 No further motions to intervene, notices of intervention, or protests to the granting of applications have been filed. At a hearing held on March 19, 1991, there was received and made a part of the record in these proceedings all evidence, including the applications and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of the authorizations sought herein. Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 C.F.R. § 375.307, it is ordered: (A) Permission for and approval of the partial abandonment of service as hereinbefore described and as more fully described in the application in Docket No. CP91-115-000, as supplemented February 15, 1991, are granted effective November 5, 1990. (B) Permission for and approval of the partial abandonment of service as hereinbefore described and as more fully set forth in the application in Docket No. CP91-183-000, as supplemented January 24, 1991, are granted effective November 5, 1990. (C) Natural and Trunkline shall comply with Part 154 of the regulations. (D) 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. [¶ 62,198] Grand River Dam Authority, Project No. 1494-008 - Oklahoma Order Approving Nonproject Use of Project Lands (Issued March 26, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On January 4, 1991, the Grand River Dam Authority, licensee for Pensacola Dam/Grand Lake project filed for approval for a nonproject use of project lands in order to permit a commercial marina development. The facilities to be constructed consist of two docks containing 61 slips. The proposed use of the docks is to accommodate recreational boaters. No gasoline sales or boat repair services are contemplated. Letters of consultation with appropriate agencies were included in the filing. No objections to the proposal were stated. The licensee intends to permit the facility under its authority as a state agency. This permit will serve in lieu of an instrument of conveyance for the property. As such, the licensee's permit should be so conditioned as to reflect the usual covenants required by the Commission. The marina development as proposed should not affect project operations, is consistent with the recreational uses of the project, and envi 4 Timely unopposed motions to intervene are granted by operation of Rule 214. ronmental impacts, including those to water quality, should be minor and of short duration. The Director orders: (A) The licensee's January 4, 1991 filing for approval of nonproject use of project lands for development of a commercial marina is approved. (B) The licensee's permit shall be conditioned to ensure that: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; and (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities on conveyed lands will occur in a manner that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project. (C) 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. [¶ 62,199] Bountiful City Light and Power, Project No. 3755-007- Utah Order Amending Recreation Plan (Issued March 26, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On August 3, 1990, Bountiful City Light and Power (licensee) filed for Commission approval a revised recreation plan for the Echo Dam Hydroelectric Project. The licensee states that in 1986, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) redesignated the recreation area as a day use, walk-in only site. In order to provide development consistent with the new designation, the licensee proposes to revise the existing recreation facilities to improve parking, install access gates, refurbish signage, and define access to foot trails. Appropriate agency comment letters were included with the plan. No objections to the plan were stated. In a letter filed October 25, 1990, the Weber River Water Users Association (WRWUA), which manages the property proposed for recreational development, agreed in principle with the proposed revision of the plan. The WRWUA opposed any expansion of facilities beyond those originally approved in the project license below the project dam. The Bureau, in a letter dated November 5, 1990, approved of the plan as proposed by the licensee. No comments were received from the Utah Division of Wildlife. The Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR), in a letter dated August 20, 1990, did not oppose the plan, but noted other uses are planned for the river corridor, including accommodation for horses and a "rail/trail" for nonmotorized recreation use. The DPR recommended that the licensee provide additional facilities which would accommodate the other planned uses, including the following items: (1) reconfiguration of the parking lot to accommodate (horse) trailers; (2) realignment of the ingress/egress to the area at a right or normal angle for public safety; (3) sanitation and water at the site; (4) a fund from project revenues to help operate and maintain the site; (5) a parking lot and access from the project site to the rail/trail; (6) facilitate the parkway or riverway concept by allowing public access to the river corridor, 1 The recreation area is on U.S. property controlled by the Bureau and managed by the WRWUA. The licensee states that the area was not officially designated "camping" prior to 1986, and overnight use of the area was both informal and infrequent. construct signs, paths and revegetate with trees; (7) a prohibition of grazing and livestock use in riparian areas of the property; (8) active protection of wetlands; and (9) develop interpretive/educational signing to explain and promote coordinated water and power development in the Weber River Basin.2 The DPR's recommended realignment of the ingress/egress at a right angle should prevent traffic from entering the recreation area parking lot at a high rate of speed and would enhance the safety of the area. The licensee contemplates some reworking of the parking lot and it would appear that realigning the ingress/egress would not adversely affect the normal operation or maintenance of the area in any way. In order to provide this reasonable accommodation to safety, the licensee should be required to take appropriate steps to realign the roadway. The DPR's recommendations for the licensee to reconfigure the parking lot to accommodate trailers, provide sanitation and water at the site, provide a fund stream from project revenues, provide parking for the rail/trail, provide items to facilitate the riverway concept, and develop interpretive/educational signing to explain and promote coordinated water and power development in the Weber River Basin, exceed the scale and scope of recreation development contemplated by the Commission at the time of licensing. Further, the comments filed by the other agencies do not support a need for these additional facilities and measures. DPR has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a need for these measures. As discussed below, if information is provided to support the need for such measures, the Commission has reserved authority to require implementation of additional mea sures. Regarding the DPR's proposals that the licensee limit grazing in the area and actively protect wetlands, these measures are beyond the limits of the licensee's authority. In order to enforce these conditions, the licensee would 2 A fenced pasture is located in the area to be developed. Although the pasture is located near the pedestrian trail, the plan does not provide for cattle grazing in the public use portions of the area. first have to acquire additional rights to the area. The Commission has reserved authority provided in article 17 of the license to require the licensee to acquire additional lands, or require additional recreation measures or facilities, after giving notice and opportunity to the licensee for a hearing. If the need for additional facilities at the project can be documented, the Commission may consider requiring the licensee to obtain additional land rights to construct additional facilities at that time. The licensee, under the terms of the project license and the Commission's regulations, is already responsible to ensure project recreation facilities are maintained; no additional measures to ensure maintenance of the facilities should be required. The changes in the facilities proposed by the licensee will tend to limit traffic to improved trails and as such are expected to reduce any adverse impacts associated with recreational use of the area. Adverse environmental effects of the licensee's proposal, if any, should be minor and short term. Approval of the plan will adequately provide for the recreational needs of the project and will allow management of the area for preservation of a wetlands and for wildlife uses and should be approved. The schedule proposed by the licensee is now obsolete and should be amended to allow additional time to complete the facilities as described in Ordering Paragraph (C). The Director orders: (A) The licensee's amendment to the project recreation plan, filed August 3, 1990, is approved. (B) The licensee shall realign the ingress/ egress to the project recreation area at a right angle as recommended by the DPR's August 20, 1990 comment letter. (C) The licensee shall complete implementation of the revised plan by October 31, 1991. Within 90 days of completion of the facilities, the licensee shall file for Commission approval drawings showing the type and location of the facilities as-built. (D) 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. [¶ 62,200] Utah State University, Project No. 11040-000 - Utah (Issued March 27, 1991) Dean L. Shumway, Director, Division of Project Review. A preliminary permit for this project is issued to Utah State University for a period effective the first day of the month in which this permit is issued, and ending either 36 months from the effective date or on the date that a development application which is accepted for filing is submitted by the permittee, whichever occurs first. [See 54 FERC ¶ 62,033 for standard language.] This preliminary permit is subject to the terms and conditions of the FPA and related regulations and also articles 1 - 6 in Form P-1 [See 54 FPC 1797 (1975)], and to the following special articles: Article 7. A liaison officer must be designated to act for the permittee in keeping appropriate federal, state, and local agencies specified in this permit informed about the progress of investigations throughout the term of the permit. In the interest of protecting and developing the natural resources and other environmental values of the project area, the permittee shall consult with the appropriate federal, regional, state, and local agencies in their fields of responsibility and expertise, shall conduct its project investigations in a manner that protects the environmental integrity of the area, and shall fully explore all reasonable alternatives to the project and alternative project designs, taking into account impacts on natural resources and other environmental values. These resources and values include but are not limited to: forests, land management and treatment, fish, wildlife, recreational and public use, flood regulation, water and air quality (including water supply, ground-water studies, waste treatment and disposal), public health and safety, archeological, historic, Indian religious and cultural sites, threatened or endangered species of flora and fauna, and scenic and aesthetic values. The permittee shall initiate and conduct any studies necessary to determine the impact of the construction and operation of the proposed project on these natural resources and values and measures needed to protect and develop them or to provide for their mitigation or |