DOCKET G-9262 & DOCKET G-9960
c~~.
...
l
--1
FROM:
City Clerk
City Attorney
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
. TO:
COPIES: Acting City Manager & Utilitie s Manager
SUBJECT: Agreement - Houston Texas Gas & Oil Company
DATE: 10/22/58
/~
"- ' --:
Attached a~~ official copies of two Orders received from
the Federal Power Commission, which relatep_l:t:;o the above
Agreement. The effect of them is to indicate that an
interruptible -service agreement between the Houston
Company and the City has not been filed with the Commis-
sion and to extend the time for filing such agreement.
I assume that the Houston Company will get in touch with
us concerning this matter but suggest that Mr. Taylor, to
whom a copy of this memorandum and a copy of the Order is
being sent, investigate this natter and correspond with
the Houston Company so that we will not be in default in
entering into this additional service agreement.
I have discussed this with the Acting City Manager.
--......;
Att. ~
. "_',"_ ",,:"'-+-_. _r-_~'''''''~~T'''''' c'~: "~~-, ~~.. ,
~---~--"'.--,--.----
......
'"'-'''''
'-'~~"""".'~'nt...~u.ii~Ut, ....~-f"
,.,.............
""-I',,,rl""""'-"
FEDERAL PO
I
WASHINGTON 25
Docket No. 0-9262 and G-9960, at ale
Houston Texas Gas &: Oil Company
\
t. "
'-",,"
OCT 1 7 1958
CmTIFIED
TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED
Gentlemeru
r~~--".-
Joseph H. Outride
Secretary
Fnclosure(s)
..
,J
lll. 1._.
C' ),..}.
\.."'~~.;
L\
\, I
,! ;;-./
UNITED STATES 0) AMERICA
FEDFmL POWER COMMISSION
Before CommissionersJ
Je:rooe K. Kuykendall, Chairman; Frederick Stueck,
William 11.: Connole" Arthur Kline and John B. Hussey.
In theJVlatters of
~
Houston Texas Gas and Oil. Corporation )
Coastal Transmission Corporation )
Docket No. 0..9262
Docket No. 0-9960
ORDER ACCEPl'INa FOR FILING SERVICE AGREEMENTS
AND EXTENDING TIME FOR COMPLIANCE
'-'-'--~~-"""""---'---"-" -,""",""
(Issued October 17, 1958)
Houston Texas Gas and Oil. Corporation (Houston Gas) submitted for
f11~ng twenty-eight service agreements on April 22, 19,7, and four servioe
e,g:,,"eements on Ma;r 10, 19,7, providing for firm service under Rate Schedule
~' with thirty~two of its proposed thirty-four resale customers. HOuston
Cia,q has :ala" .t'iled service agreements for preferred interruptible servioe
l.1'1ier Rata Sche1ule I with eleven of the said thirty-two oustomers. The
customers are l:.sted in Appendix A hereto. Houston Gas states the service
agrf'elncntfl are :;,mbmitted in compliance with paragraph (F) of the
Ccnmussionls order issued February 21, 1957, which in part requires
Houston Gas to file exe-mted service agreements with all its resale
customers wi thin &J day::: after February 21, 1957. Firm service agreament,s
l>Jith the City of St. Petersburg and the City of Lake City, Florida, and
nine service agreements fOL~ preferred interruptible service have not
bee;; submitted for filing..
Houston Gas further states regarding the preferred interruptible
service agreements not fUed.. that the customers IJrequire considerable
more ti.me to complete t~tr "rrRng8m8Bt..silith'-~ercial and industrial
,~""",""-"'""'~-'~~-pureha:Beri'To~""6e"serve(fill and that as to service agreements for firm
gert.>ral ser.vice with their remaining resale customers the same cannot be
filf)d at this time for the reason that (1) it is not known wLO the
dist.ributor of the gas will be, and (2) plans for the financing of the
distribution systems have not been finalized. For the foregoing reasons"
as well al'l the fact that service will not commence until sometime in the
future~ Hcuston Gas requests that it be permitted to file the remainir~
service a.greements in accordance witn Seotion 154.22 of the Commission's
Regulations undet' the Natural Gas Act.
i~h€ pretE'.rr€'.d interruptible service agreements with Jacksonville
Gas Co.rpurati{'ln., Ocala Gas Company, Triangle Gas Company, and \-Jest
Florida Gas & Fuel Company, do not specify the maximum daily obligation,.
DC-21
_"n~-~~"'-""""""'."'"""-.~ ,
., J I
"
,,,,l'
~ ~-
Dooket N~.G-9262, et ale -2-
--
whioh renders them inoomplete. Aooordingly at least 30 days prior to the
cUn~nE),1cement of service substitute sheets to these servioe agreements
should be filed setting forth the maximum and rnininnun daily obligations
as required by the form service agreement oontained in the tariff.
The Commission finds J
(1) Good cause has been shown' for (a) accepting for filing of
32 service agreements tor firm general servioe and 11 servioe agreements
for preferred interruptible service with customers hereinbefore referred
to, and listed in Appendix A, and submitted to the Commission for filing,
subjeot to the terms and conditions of this order, and (b) allowing and
permi tting Houston Gas to file firm service agreements for the",Q,ity pt_hh
st. Petersburg and City 01 Lake'City, and interrUptible service agreements
wi th the following customers:
I, Oi ty of Clearwater
2. Houston Corporation (Lakeland)
3. Florida Public Utilities Company
4. Gainesville Gas Company
5. Peoplea Water & Gas Co.
6. Tampa Gas Company
7. Ci ty of Gracevi1le
8. Lake City
9. Narianna
in conformity with the provisions of Section 154.22 of the Commission1s
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act.
(2) It is appropriate to the administration of the Natural Gas Act
and consistent with regulations of the Commission to permit and allow
Houston Gas to file any additional service agreements in conformity with
the notice requirements of Section 154.22 of the COmmission's Regulations
under the Natural Gas Act, in lieu of the requirements heretofore fixed
by the Commission in paragrh1::ee.~~J'-*.t.~ or,cier~".issued>heretn on" .
February 2i}-"~?--,-"""""",,,<, "
The Commission orders:
(A) The service agreements filed by Houston Gas on April 22 and
May 10, 1957, providing for (1) firm service to the 32 customers referred
to herein and listed in Appendix A hereto and (2) preferred interruptible
service to City of Avon Park, City of Ft. Pierce, City of Green Cove
Springs, Jacksonville Gas Corporation, City of Lake Alfred, City of
Leesburg, Ocala Gas Company, City of Plant City, Southern Gas & Electric
Corporation, Triangle Gas Company and West Florida Gas & Fuel Company, be
and the same are hereby aocepted for filing to become effective on the
cia te of initial deli very.
.
I
I
,.
,~I
'~
Docket Nos.G-9262, ~ !!.
W 3i-
(B) Houston Gas shall file subStitute sheets for inclusion in service
t;Y's8ffiertts with Jacksonville Gas Corporation, Oc~la Gas Company, Triangle
;)<:;,3 Company, and ~vest Florida Gas and Fuel Company so as to reflect
maximum and rnin:imwn daily service obligations" and in conformity w'ith the
Rules and Regulations of the Commission.
(C) Houston Gas be and the same will hereby be permitted to file
firm service agreements with the City of st. Petersburg, and the City of
Lake City, preferred interruptible service agre~nents witha
1. City of Clearwater
2. Houston Corporation (Lakeland)
.3. Florida Public Utilities Company
4. aainesville Gas Company
5. Peoples Water & Gas Company
6. Tampa Gas Company
1. City of Graceville
8. Lal~e City
9. Marianna
in conformity with the provisions of Seotion 154.22 of the Commission's
R0gulations under the Natural Gas Act" in lieu of the requirement hereto-
f")rc flxedby the Commission in paragraph (F) of its order issued herein
0;1 February 21" 1951.
(D) Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as a waiver
of the requirements of Section 1 of the Natural Gas Act; nor shall it be
construed as constituting approval by the Commission of the service
agreements or of any rate, charge, classification, or any rule" regulation
or practice affecting such service agreement or rate; nor shall this order
be deemed as recognition of any claimed contractual right or obligation
affecting or relating to such service agreement or rate.
. "..,~,.,......_ ."-0.
(E) This order is without prejudice to any findings or orders which
have been or may hereafter be made by this Commission in any proceeding
now pending, or hereafter inl:l'~!;~~,bjV..Qr against Houston Texas Gas and
.oil Corporat;ion;"'"'"'--''''':''''''''''-i'1'''''
By the Commission.
~~
"'.
"
......
Joseph H. Gutrice,
Secr'-tary.
w;:#,'
--',,;
J .
2r
3.
4.
S.
6.
1.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13,
14.
1,.
16.
I
APPENDIX A
."i~J of Avon Park
Oity of Blountstown
Town of Chattahoochee
Oi ty of Clearwater
Florida Home Gas Company
Florida Public Utilities Company
~l-Ci ty of Ft. Pierce
Gainesville Gas Company
*City of Green Cove Springs
~l-Jacksonvi1le Gas Corporation
*Ci ty of Lake Alfred
,*Ci ty of Leesburg
City of Madison
City of Harianna
..y~Ocala Gas Company
Peoples ~fater & Gas Company
11.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
.26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
.31.
32.
I
City of Perry
*City of Plant City
Putnam Gas & Fuel Company
Sanford Gas Company
*Southern Gas & Electric Corporation
City of Starke
Tampa Gas Company
*Triangle Gas Company
*viest Florida Gas & Fuel Company
Houston Corporation (Lakeland)
Houston Corporation (Orlando)
Houston Corporation (Miami)
City of Chipley
City of Graceville
-City of Live Oak
Central Florida Gas Corporation
*Customer also has service agreement for preferred interruptible service.
"_~....~" ~".,--t-'-""
-~-,;~
I
'-
I
y
'.. /'
I '
UNITED STATES OF AlViERICA
FEDERAL Por;\TER CO~j}HSSIuN
Before Commissioners: Jerone K. Kuykendall, ChairD~; Frederick Stueck,
.willi3E 1l.. Connole, j,rthur Kline and John B. Hussey.
In the Matters of )
)
Houston Texas Gas and Oil Corporation )
Coastal Transmission Corporation )
Docket No. G-9262
Docket No. G-9960
ORDER A}JEBDING ORDER ISSUING CEF,TIFICATES
OF PUBLIC CONVENIE1~CE AND l\TECESSITY
(Issued Octobor 17, 1950)
Coastal Transmission Corporation (Coastal), a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Houston, Texas; and Houston Texas Gas
and Oil Corporation (Houston Texas) a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Houston, Texas, filed on September 12 and September 15,
1958, respectively, separate motions to amend the Commission's order issued
December 28, 1956, in the above-docketed proceedings, so as to authorize the
respective parties to construct and operate certain facilities, as herein-
after described, in lieu of certain facilities also hereinafter identified
and described, which were authorized to be constructed and operated by the
respective parties in the Commission's order issued December 28, 1956, in
conjunction with Opinion No. 301, all as more fully described in the motions
on file with the Commission,
Coastal requests authority to construct and operate the following
described facilities:
(a) Approximately 46.67 miles of 24-inch main line pipe,in lieu
of 22-inch main line pipe, extending from a point near Galveston
Bay, south of Houston, Texas, to a point in Jefferson County,
Texas.
(b) Approximately 27.6 miles of 22-inch main line pipe, in lieu of
20-inch main line pipe, extending from Compressor Station No.4,
Matagorda County, Texas, to the Lochridge Field, Brazoria County,
Texas.
(c) Approximately 7.23 miles of 6-inch pipe, in lieu of 4-inch pipe,
in the lateral supply line extending from the Fulton Beaoh Field,
Aransas County, Texas to the Fulton Beach Junction.
DC-2l
.':"0 -
J
I
..
Docket Nos. G-9262; et ale
- 2 ...
(d) Approximately 17.10 miles of 8-inch pipe, in lieu of 6-inch
pipe, in the lateral supply line extending from the Cayo del Oso
Junction to the IYiurdock Pass Junction.
(e) Approximately 7.70 miles of 14-inch pipe, in lieu of 12-inch
pipe, in the lateral supply line extending from the l'iurdock Pass
Junction to Coastal's main line.
(f) Approximately 1.79 miles of6-inch pipe, in lieu of 3-inch pipe,
in a portion of the Palacios Field Lateral.
(g) Approximately 17.17 miles of 4-inch pipe, in lieu of 6-inch
pipe, in the lateral supply line extending from the Garcia Field,
starr County, Texas, to the McCook Field, Hidalgo County, Texas.
With respect to the above-described facilities, Coastal represents
that:
(a) Coastal's main line facilities after assuming the contruction
of 46.67 miles of 24-inch pipe and 27.6 miles of 22-inch pipe,
as requested, and taking into account certain reductions in
length made possible by rerouting after survey, will consist
of the following:
(i) Approximately 94.35 miles, instead of approximately 96.2
miles, of l2-inch pipe extending from Monte Christo Field,
Hidalgo County, Texas, to Compressor Station No.2, Nueces
County, Texas.
(ii) Approximately: 147,31 miles of 20-inch pipe extending from
said Compressor Station No. 2 to Compressor Station No.4,
Hatagorda County, Texas, approximately 67,96 miles of 22-
inch pipe extending from said Compressor Station No. 4 to
a point near Galveston Bay, and approximately 46.67 miles
of 24-inch pipe extending from said point to a point in
Jefferson County, Texas. These facilities are in lieu of
approximately 177 miles of 20-inch pipe between said Com-
pressor Station No. 2 and Lochridge Field, Brazoria County,
Texas, and approximately 95.1 miles of 22-inch pipe between
Lochridge Field and said point in Jefferson County, Texas.
( iii) Approxlluately 206.1 miles of 24-inch pipe extending fr om
such aforementioned point in Jefferson County, Texas, to
Compressor Station No. 6 and thence to Compressor Station
No, 8, East Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
~ .
)
I
"
.,
Docket Nos. G.9262, et a1,
- 3 -
The aggregate length of Coastalls 1!tetal iinesj as authorized by its
certificate, being approximatel~ 414 miles, will not be changed by the in-
stallation of the main line and lateral facilities herein described.
In the twenty-one months which have elapsed since the issuance of its
certificate, Coastal has surveyed and mapped a substantial portion of the
route of its proposed facilities, and has located the same with more par-
ticularity than was possible at the time of the hearings herein. On-the-
ground surveys and aerial mapping, with consequent right-of-wa~ changes,
have resulted in shortening the over-all length of Coastal's main line
from 574.4 to 562.4 miles.
The above-described 2-inch increases in pipe diameter in the main
line facilities of Coastal will eliminate the necessity for operating
compressor facilities at a relatively' high overload under peak day' oper-
ating conAibtens, and will thereby eliminate an~ cause for the concern
expressed b~ the Commission in its 6pinion No, )01 accompanying the order
issued on December 28, 1956, over this feature of the Coastal-Houston Texas
project as originally authorized. The overl~ad capacity is thus reserved
for unusual or eme~gency operating conditions. No change is requested in
the amount of horsepower authorized to be installed at each of Coastal's
four compressor stations. Furthermore, should operating conditions require
"pigging" the main line, it will be advantageous to have only one pipe size
change (from 22-inch to 24 inch) between Stations 4 and 6 instead of two
(from 20-inch to 24-inch) as authorized.
The availability of additional reserves in certain of Coastal's gas
suppl~ fields has made it desirable to increase the size of pipe for the
supply laterals described in paragraphs (c) through (f) of Section I hereof
connecting those fields with Coastal's main line, The reduction of the
pipe size of the lateral of the Garcia Field described in paragraph (g) of
Section I hereof will effect no change in the volumes to be taken, the
smaller diameter pipe being adequate to accomodate the reserves from that
field.
As heretofore stated, nothing re~ested in this motion will alter aqy
essential element of the Coastal-Houston Texas project, which in all basic
particulars remains the project authorized by this Commission in the ori-
ginal certificates. No change will be effected in the normal operating
capacity of the project, the sources of gas supply, the volume of gas to
be taken, transported and delivered, or the customers authorized to be
served. The minor changes requested improve economio feasibility through
the construction of facilities to transport the certificated volumes of
gas more efficiently.
~ ~
I
I
Docket Nos. G-9262, et all
.. 4 ..
The savings. in the main l~ ~6ets tesul t1ng f'rol'll the re-routing and
shortening of' the over-all le~t ibt ma1h line, and in oosts of' laterals
resulting from the shortenihg Q ength and deoreasing of pipe diameter
of laterals hereinbefore referred to more than offset the total increases
in oost which will result from the increase of main line pipe diameter,
the increases in pipe diameter and length of certain lateral lines and
the addition of the new lateral supp~ line. The net result of all the
ch81ges is a saving of 52 inch-miles in Costal's project, which based on
present costs of material and labor, amounts to approximately :jjil60,OOO.
Houston Texas requests authority to construot and operate the follow-
ing described facilities:
(1) Approximately 97.1 miles of 20-inch pipe, in lieu of 18-inch pipe
in the section of Houston Texas' main line between Kissimmee,
Osceola County, Florida, and Fort Pierce,St. Lucie County, Florida.
(2) Approximately 13.3 miles of 12-3/4-inch and 2.5 miles of 3-112-
inch pipe in lieu of approximately 5.0 miles of 4-l/2-inch pipe
in the sales lateral extending from Houston Texas' main line to
Sanford, Seminole County, Florida.
(3) Approximately' 14.0 miles of 8-5/8-inch pipe in lieu of 3.5 miles
of 6-5/8-inch pipe in the sales lateral extending from Houston
Texas I main line to Palatka, Putnam County, Florida.
(4)
Approximately 36.3 miles of 8-5/8-inch pipe in lieu of 23.5 miles
of 14-inch pipe and 23.0 miles of 12-3(4-inch pipe in the sales
lateral extending from Houston Texas'main line to a point near
Williston, Levy County, Florida, and approximately 23.0 miles of
6-5/8-inch pipe in lieu of 23.75 miles of 4-1/2-inch pipe in
Houston Texas' sales lateral extending from said point near
Williston, Levy County, Florida, to Ocala, l1arion County, Florida.
(5) Approximately 28.9 miles of 18-inch pipe, 20.4 miles of 16-inch
pipe, 34.3 miles of 14-inch pipe, and 12,5 miles of 12-3/4-inch
pipe in lieu of 41.2 miles of 18-inch pipe, and 58.1 miles of
12-314-inch pipe in Houston Texas' sales lateral extending from
Kissimmee, Osoeola County~ Florida, to Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
(6) Approximately 6.8 miles of 10-3/4-inch ~ipe in lieu of 5.5 miles
of 8-5/8-inch pipe in Houston Texas' sales lateral extending from
Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, to a point near St. Peters-
burg, Pinellas County, Florida.
(7) Approximately 7.4 miles of 4-1/2 inch pipe in lieu of lS.O miles
of 8-S/B-inch pipe in Houston Texas' sales lateral extending from
said Kissimmee-Clearwater sales lateral to Tampa, Hillsborough
eounty, Florida.
~ .
I
I
.'
Docket No.s G.9262~ et 81.
... 5 -
(8) Approximately 23.4 miles of l2-3/4-inch pipe and 54.0 miles of
8-S/B-inch pipe in lieu of 80 miles of 6-S/8-inch pipe in Houston
Texas I sales lateral extending from a point near Polk Cit;y', Polk
County, Florida, to Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida.
(9) Approximately 19.6 miles of 8-S/B-inch pipe and 11.6 miles of
6-S/8-inch pipe in lieu of 33.25 miles of 6-,/8-inch pipe in
Houston Texas' sales lateral extending from its main line to
Panama City, Bay Count;y', Florida.
Approximately 3.6 miles of 4-l/2-inch ~ipe and 0.5 miles of 3-1/2-
inch pipe in lieu of 2.0 miles of )-1{2-inch pipe in Houston
Texas' sales lateral extending from a point on the said Polk City-
Sarasota sales lateral to Lake Alfred, Polk County, Florida.
(10)
With respect to the above-desBribed facilities Houston Texas repre-
sents that:
1. Houston Texas' main line facilities, after construction of the
requested 97.1 miles of 20-inch pipe, and taking into account
certain reductions in length made possible by rerouting after
surveJ will consist of the following:
(a) Approximately 679.2 miles (instead of approximately 702.1
miles), of 24-inch pipe extending from the junction of the
main line of Houston Texas with the main line of Coastal
Transmission Corporation (Coastal) at Coastal's Compressor
Station No. 8, ~ast Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, to a point
near Kissimmee, Florida.
(b) Arproximately 97.1 miles of 20-inch pipe extending from said
point near Kissimmee, Florida, to Fort Pierce, Florida.
(c) Approximately 137.9 miles of l8-inch pipe extending from Fort
Pierce, Florida, to the terminus of.the,"msinline of Houston
Texas near Cutler, Dade County, Florida.
The total length of Houston Texas' lateral lines after construction
of the several requested changes in pipe size and length, will be increased
from approximately 682., miles of lateral lines ranging from 18 inches to
about 3 inches in diameter, to approximately 701.7 miles of lateral lines
ranging from 18 inches to 2-1/2 inches in diameter, all of which will ex-
tend from its main line to the same communities and industrial customers
as are authorized to be served by said order accompnajing said Opinion
No. 3Cl.
No change in the installed horsepower authorized by said order is
proposed and no request is being made herein for aqy sueh change.
,"
I
I
.'
Docket Nos. G-9262, et all
... 6 ...
In the twenty-one months which haYe elapsed since the issuance of the
certificates herein, Houston Texas has surveyed and mapped a substantial
portion of the route of its authDrized facilities, and has located the
same with more particularity than was possible at the time of the hearings
herein. On-the-ground surveys and aerial mapping, with consequent right-
of-way changes, have resulted in the afore-described shortening of the
over-all length of the main line of Houston Texas from 942.6 to 914.2 miles.
The more specific location of the route of the main line which has
resulted in the reduction of total main line mileage has caused the length-
ening of certain of Houston Texas' sales laterals and shortened othera,
depending upon which side of the main line the delivery points are located.
In some cases Houston Texas has been able to reduce the diameter of sales
laterals without affecting the deliverability of those laterals. In no
case are delivery conditions chmged nor is the ability to deliver the
contracted quantities of gas at the various delivery points affected, ex-
cept that, in order to effect delivery of the same volume of gas over the
longer laterals to Sanford and Palatka without additional compression, it
will be necessary to increase the diameter of the pipe in those laterals.
The above-described increase in pipe diameter from 18 inches to 20
inches in main line facilities, tOf~ther with the aforesaid reduction in
total m~in line mileage, has enabled Houston Texas to relocate its com-
pressor facilities so as to allow their operation with a minimum overload
under peak-day operating conditions and will thereby be relieved from an
overload condition which was considered to be generally undesirable by the
Commission in its Opinion No. 301, accompanying said order issued on December
28, 1956. The overload capacity is thus reserved for unusual or emergency
operating conditions.
As heretofore stated, nothing requested in this motion will alter any
essential element of Houston Texas' p~oject, which in all basic particulars
remains the project authorized by this Commission in the original certifi-
cate. No change will be effected in the normal operating capacit;y of the
project, the sources of gas supply, the volume of "gas, ,to be' taken, trans-
ported and delivered, or the customers authorized to be served. The minor
changes requested improve economic feasibility through the construction of
facilities to transport nod deliver the certificated volumes more efficiently.
Houston Texas presented a comparison of its present~ estimated pipe-
line construction cost for its revised pipeline with that estimated in its
hearing Exhibit 261 presented in 1956. This shows an increase of $6,425,300
from ~?5,063,000 in Exhibit 261 to the present estimate of ~Bl,488,300 for
the revised project.. However, under present day prices, the authorized
pipelines would cost ~82,63l,797. Thus, the revised proposal herein would
effect a saving of ~1,143,497. (These are not total project costs as they
do not include compressor stations and other necessary facilities).
..., ,w
I
I
..
i,oc;{et Nos. 0-9262, et al.
.. 7 ...
The increase in cost is due primarily to increased. material; labor and
e1Uipment costs since preparation Qf Exhibit 261. Houstori Texas' overall
project cost at present d~ prices is estimated. at $103,107,000, which may
be compared to the project cost of~94,285,000 estimated in Exhibit 261 in
1956.
Coastal also presented a comparison of its total project cost, summar-
ized as follows:
(19.56 )
Exhibit 233 Revised Proposal
Increase
Pipelines only
Total Project
~42,7l0,OOO
~5'4,279,000
$4,383,000
$5,087,000
~~47 ,093,000
~5'9,366,000
Under present d~ prices,Coastal estimates that the authorized pipe-
lines only would cost $47,25'2,000. Thus, the revised proposal herein
would effect a saving of $159,000 in pipeline costs.
Coastal stated the increased cost is due mainly to increased costs
of materials and labor since Exhibit 233 was prepared.
The parties of record to these proceedings have been served with
notice of the filing of the respective motions, and served with copies
of the same, and no objection or protest to the granting thereof has been
filed.
It appears from the representations of Coastal and Houston Texas,
(1) that no customer of Coastal or Houston Texas, or consumers of natural
gas in the areas proposed to be served by Coastal and Houston Texas will
be deleteriously' affected by' the proposed changes and (2) material bene-
fits may result from the proposed changes.
The Commission finds:
.
That it is necessar,y and appropriate to carry out the provisions of
the Natural Gas Act that the order of the Commission issued December 28,
1956, in conjunction with Opinion No. 301 authorizing the construction and
operation of natural gas facilities by Coastal and Houston Texas be amended
only in those specific particulars referred to and described in the sep-
arate motions to amend filed hereby by Coastal on September 12, 19.58, and
by Houston Texas on September 15, 1958 (as corrected by' letter of Houston
Texas dated and filed October 1, 19$8).
The Commission orders:
(A) That the order of the Commission issued December 28, 1956 In the
Matters of Houston Texas Gas and Oil Corporation, Docket No. 0-9262 and
Coastal Transmission Corporation, Docket No. 0~9960, be and the same is
.. ,I ...,.
.......,.
,
I
,"
LOcKet Nos. 0-9002, et ale
.. 8 -
hE'rebj amended, BO as to authorize the changes specifically' described
and referred to in the respeotive motions to amend filed herein by Coastal
and Houston Texas on September 12 and September 15, 1958, respectively.
(B) The order of the Commission referred to in our finding above! and
in paragraph (A) of this order be and the same remain unchanged except in
the particulars specifically autho~ized hereby,
By the Commission.
(U~~
''I' . /. J ,/ -~-:,/{../
-v \",---'..".- '-'"
I _
\,..-,-
Joseph H. Gutride,
Secretary.
-',
"
,.-
-....
,....
'-
-..,
-.
,