[Federal Register: June 13, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 31900-31901]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jn01-44]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP01-380-000]
Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application
June 7, 2001.
Take notice that on May 30, 2001, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158,
filed in docket No. CP01-380-000 an application pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity authorizing Kern River to construct
and operate: (1) A 12-inch mainline tap on Kern River's mainline north
of Las Vegas; (2) approximately 3.54 miles of 16-inch diameter delivery
lateral pipeline in Clark County, Nevada (Moapa Lateral); and (3) a
delivery meter station at the terminus of the lateral, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing may be viewed at http://
www.rimsweb1.ferc.fed.us/rims.q?rp2~intro. (call 202-208-2222 for
assistance).
Specifically, Kern River requests authorization to construct the
Moapa Lateral to provide up to 218.8 MMcf per day of natural gas to
Duke Energy North America, LLP (Duke) to fuel its proposed 1,200
megawatt gas-fired power plant near Moapa, Nevada. Transportation
service to the plant will be provided under authorized Part 284
transportation service agreements.
The estimated cost of the proposed lateral facilities is
approximately $3.8 million. Duke will reimburse Kern River for all of
the actual costs of the proposed
[[Page 31901]]
facilities, plus associated income taxes, by making a lump sum payment
upon completion of construction. Kern River requests a final
certificate order no later than May 2, 2002, in order to complete the
project before November 2002, the date Duke estimates it will require
test gas for its new plant.
Because the pipeline will cross environmentally sensitive areas,
i.e. the critical habitat of the desert tortoise, kern River states
that it is seeking a case specific certificate, rather than pursuing
this pipeline construction project under its Part 157, Subpart F,
blanket certificate authority.
An questions regarding this application should be directed to Mr.
Gary Kotter, Manager, Certificates, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900 or call (801)
584-7117.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before June 20, 2001, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to
intervene 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 NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition of this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission(except for the mailing of environmental documents issued
by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of
the Commission's final order.
The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-
environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the
environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination
typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its
economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other
pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example,
the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to
exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed
project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be
provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on
community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important
either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as
possible.
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet
in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov/documents/
makeanelectronicfiling/doorbell.htm.
If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue
another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's
review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a
certificate will be issued.
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14852 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M