[Federal Register: December 30, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 79588-79589]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30de02-55]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP03-29-000]
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Application
December 23, 2002.
Take notice that on December 17, 2002, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 12801 Fair Lakes Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia
22030-0146, filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of
the Natural gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a limited
blanket certificate to perform certain specific activities at its
Victory storage field in Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia,
all as more fully set forth in the application on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for
review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``FERRIS'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866)208-3676, or for
TTY, contact (202)502-8659.
Columbia states that on September 18, 2002, Consolidated Coal
Company and McElroy Coal Company (collectively referred to as McElroy)
and Columbia executed a settlement agreement relating to the continued
operation of the victory storage field in tandem with coal mining
operations. It is stated that the settlement agreement is structured to
allow McElroy continuous access for its coal mining operation while
ensuring a preservation of current storage field deliverability, in a
cost effective manner, for Columbia and its customers. In addition, it
is stated that as a result of the sequential drill-and-plug approach
adopted by the parties for maintaining deliverability, mining
activities through Victory should progress more safely.
Columbia states that once mining within the Victory storage field
commences, it will frequently be required to act within time frames
that do not permit seeking advance Commission authorization each time
an active injection/withdrawal well must be plugged to accommodate
mining, or a replacement injection/withdrawal well must be drilled to
preserve existing deliverability. In order to avoid the need for
repeatedly seeking expedited decisions on matters requiring NGA section
7 authority, Columbia requests a limited blanket certificate for
authorization to drill replacement injection/withdrawal wells, and
abandon existing injection/withdrawal wells, and a flexible time frame
for meeting the normal environmental reporting requirements associated
with such activities.
Columbia maintains that the settlement agreement with McElroy
insulates Columbia and its customers from the costs associated with
abandoning existing injection/withdrawal or observation wells and
drilling replacement injection/withdrawal or observation wells.
Columbia avers that its customers will incur no significant costs in
conjunction with replacing existing wells and ancillary equipment with
replacement wells and equipment while preserving existing capacity and
deliverability from the Victory storage field. Columbia states that it
would seek rolled-in rate treatment for the minor non-reimbursed costs
which will be incurred with respect to well abandonment and replacement
activities in Victory. Columbia states that McElroy would pay for up to
750 feet of well line to connect each replacement well and Columbia
would pay for any footage of well line over 750 feet. Columbia further
states that for pipelines impacted by mining, Columbia would receive a
reimbursement of 50 percent of the costs associated with mitigating
impact on pipelines in Victory which are 12-inch or greater in diameter
when such pipelines are schedule to be, or are, mined under during the
months of December, January, February or March of any year while the
settlement agreement is in effect. Under such a scenario, Columbia
states that it would seek to roll-in to its rates the portion of
pipeline costs not reimbursed by McElroy.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
counsel for Columbia, Fredric J. George, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273, at
(304) 357-2359, fax (304) 357-3206.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to
[[Page 79589]]
obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this
project should, on or before the comment date stated below 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 in the
proceeding. with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party. 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 to 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.
Protests and interventions 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 under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
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.
Comment Date: January 13, 2003.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-32874 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P