The Duke Energy Pipelines have registered their support – with”minor modifications” – for FERC’s proposed changes to itsexisting regulations governing the construction of new pipelinefacilities.

The proposed revisions would bring the Commission’s existingconstruction regulations “up to date to match current policies,”would eliminate “ambiguities and obsolete language,” and would makethe rules “more germane and less cumbersome,” the Duke pipelinessaid in comments filed at FERC Monday [RM98-9].

The remarks were in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking(NOPR) that seeks to expand the scope of blanket certificateauthority for pipelines, and make a number of other “housekeeping”changes to FERC’s Part 157 regulations. The NOPR was issued in lateSeptember in conjunction with another proposed rulemaking thatwould give gas pipelines the option to engage in a collaborativeprocess to resolve conflicts prior to filing their applications,and a third proceeding addressing FERC’s current landownernotification process. The three initiatives are aimed atstreamlining and expediting the certificate process for newprojects.

With respect to the Part 157 NOPR, the Duke pipelines favor theproposals to raise the spending limit on the construction andacquisition of facilities that can be acted on by the director ofthe Office of Pipeline Regulation (OPR) from $5 million to $19million, give the OPR director the authority to dismiss proteststhat don’t raise substantive issues, and require prior-noticeapplications to be noticed within 10 days of an application. Theycontend these would “further improve the [certification] processand make it more efficient.”

The Duke Energy pipelines, however, took issue with a proposedrevision that would require pipes to construct replacementfacilities within the “certificated right-of-way” and inaccordance with a “new Appendix A to Part 2” that would setguidelines for “determining the acceptable construction area forreplacements.”

The Duke pipelines “do not believe that the ‘policy’ proposed tobe codified in Apendix A to Part 2 represents reasonable orrepresentative right-of-way or work-space area requirements in allsituations. [We] are very concerned about the effects of codifyingthese guidelines on other types of projects,” they said.

The proposed change does not take into consideration safety as a”key factor” in deciding to replace facilities, nor does itrecognize the ever-changing requirements placed on pipelines tocomply with “substantive environmental laws and regulations,” theDuke Energy pipes noted. At a minimum, they asked that pipelines bepermitted to proceed with replacement facilities where the pipe andlandowner are in agreement as to the temporary right-of-way andwork space.

The Duke Energy pipelines also opposed a proposal that wouldenable the Commission to reject non-conforming applications forminor and major projects within ten days. As an alternative, thepipelines suggested that FERC issue a “letter of deficiency” to theapplicant within ten days, and give it a “ten-day opportunity tocure” it. “At a bare minimum, some standard for rejection should bestated in the regulations issued by the Commission.”

©Copyright 1998 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. Thepreceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, inwhole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.