{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-01-0114","title":"Gas Pipeline Safety Division — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2001-08-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-01-0114 response to Gas Pipeline Safety Division concerning 192.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-01-0114.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-01-0114.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-01-0114","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2001/g01-08-17_Blanton_192.3_Transmission-n_5.4.11.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nPI-01-0114\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S,W, Washington, D.C. 20590\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nMr. Glynn Blanton\nChief, Gas Pipeline Safety Division\nTennessee Regulatory Authority\n460 James Robertson Parkway\nNashville, TN 37243\nDear Mr. Blanton:\nThis refers to your enclosed letter of January 22, 2001, in which you ask whether the\nStone Mountain Pipeline Company (Stone Mountain) project, as described below, is\njurisdictional to our agency.\nAccording to the information provided, Stone Mountain currently has 63 miles of\npipelines extending from Kentucky to Virginia which the Federal Energy Regulatory\nCommission (FERC) regards as a gathering system and does not regulate. However,\nStone Mountain has started a project which will add a ten-inch pipeline from the south\nend of the ten-inch Martins Fork to Rose Hill pipeline to a proposed Rogersville\nCompressor Station. . This pipeline will be used to deliver gas gathered from many fields,\nthrough as many as 62 wells, into the East Tennessee system at an interconnection\ndownstream of the Rogersville Compressor Station, East Tennessee will build a lateral to\nthe proposed site of the interconnection pursuant to its blanket authority from FERC.\nAccording to Stone Mountain, some of the lines feeding into the ten-inch pipeline will be\nseveral miles long and will act as \"backbone\" pipelines that will collect gas from\nnumerous feeding lines along their length.\nOnshore gathering lines are not subject to 49 CFR Part 192 if they lie outside of the limits\nof an incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village or any designated residential\nor commercial area. Assuming that the Stone Mountain project will lie entirely outside of\nthese areas, the issue is whether the ten-inch pipeline that is being constructed between\nRose Hill, Virginia, and the proposed Rogersville Compressor Station, is classified as a\ngathering line or a transmission line.\n49 CFR. § 192.3 explains that a gathering line ends at a transmission line, and a\ntransmission line is a pipeline that transports gas from a gathering line to a distribution\ncenter, storage facility or large volume customer that is not downstream from a\ndistribution center.\nAccordingly, the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) historically has selected the appropriate\nend point on a case-by-case basis, primarily using four points. These four points include\n\n<<>>\n\n(1) the outlet of a processing plant; (2) if there is no upstream processing plant, the outlet\nof a main compressor; (3) if there is no processing plant or compressor station, then the\npoint where two or more well lines converge; and (4) if no other point is appropriate, the\npoint where there is a change in ownership of the pipeline. In addition, once designated\nas a transmission line, no portion of the line may be redesignated as a gathering line even\nif further commingling of gas occurs downstream.\nStone Mountain believes that FERC will continue to classify their entire system as a\ngathering system. However, OPS is not bound by FERC's classification of gathering lines\nunder the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq.), 49 U.S.C. § 60101(b)(1)(B)(ii),\nThis. means that although FERC may continue to classify the Stone Mountain system as\na gathering system, OPS is not required to do so.\nAlthough the Stone Mountain project clearly does not contain a processing plant, it will\nhave three compressor stations, located at Martins Fork and Rose Hill, Virginia, and\nRogersville, Tennessee. As used in our four-point test, a main compressor is one that has\nthe main function of moving gas in transportation even if it also enhances the production\nprocess. Because the Rose Hill Compressor Station is not currently being used to gather\ngas from the existing upstream facilities, it appears that it will be used to move gas\nthrough the proposed ten-inch line from Rose Hill to Rogersville. Therefore, this is the\nlast logical end point far the gathering line and, therefore, the point at which the\ntransmission line begins. Because this line becomes a transmission line no further\ndownstream than Rose Hill, Virginia, it cannot be redesignated a gathering line in\nTennessee, even if it receives additional gas from other gathering lines.\nThe Stone Mountain ten-inch pipeline from Martins Fork to Rose Hill and continuing to\nthe Rogersville Compressor Station is expected to receive and commingle gas from as\nmany as 62 wells located in multiple fields. Moreover, this line currently serves four\nmarket delivery points, including a federal prison, and Stone Mountain anticipates an\nadditional delivery point to the Hawkins County Utility District, The ten-inch pipeline\nappears to be transporting gas from the incoming gathering lines to its delivery points\nand, finally, to the East Tennessee interconnect. Therefore, OPS characterizes the ten-\ninch line from the proposed Rose Hill Compressor Station to the proposed Rogersville\nCompressor Station as a transmission line.\nInterstate transmission lines are subject to the jurisdiction of OPS. Intrastate transmission\nlines are subject to the jurisdiction of the state under its Section 60105 certification.\nAccording to 49 U.S.C. § 60101(a), an interstate pipeline must be subject to the\njurisdiction of FERC under the Natural Gas Act and intrastate pipelines are not subject to\nthe jurisdiction of FERC. Therefore, the determination of whether this is a interstate or\nintrastate pipeline is based on whether FERC has jurisdiction over the pipeline. Because\nthis segment is not certificated by FERC, it is an intrastate transmission line and,\ntherefore, it is subject to jurisdiction by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority under its\nSection 60105 certification.\nIf we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at (202) 366-4565.\n\n<<>>\n\nSincerely yours,\nRichard D. Huriaux, P.E. Manager, Regulations Office of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nBILLING CODE 4910-60-P\n\n<<>>\n\nTENNESSEE REGULATORY AUTHORITY\n460 James Robertson Parkway Nashville\nTennessee 37243-0505\nJanuary 22, 2001\nMr. Bennie Andrews, State Liaison\nU.S. DOT/RPSA/OPS\nAtlanta Federal Center, Suite 16T15\n61 Forsyth St. SW\nAtlanta, GA 30303\nDear Bennie,\nEnclosed please find the information that I discussed with you last week pertaining to a natural\ngas gathering system (Evan Energy) that will be constructing a ten-inch pipeline from Virginia\ninto Tennessee to an interconnection with Duke Energy Gas Transmission in Rogersville,\nTennessee. Evan Energy stated, \"We are not an interstate pipeline company and not\njurisdictional to federal authority.\" They have filed the enclosed information with our agency to\nmake us aware of the pipeline construction activities that started on January 8, 2001. During our\nmeeting with them on December 19, 2000 they mentioned that they would provide us additional\ninformation on a meeting they had with FERC on federal jurisdiction. We have not received the\ninformation but anticipate the document being filed with our office in the coming week.\nYour assistance in reviewing this information and determining if this operator is jurisdictional to\nyour agency would be appreciated. I would like to request your decision be provided to our\noffice as soon as possible since this project is on a fast track to be installed.\nSincerely,\nGlynn Blanton, Chief\nGas Pipeline Safety Division\n\n<<>>\n\nExcellence with Energy\nEVAN ENERGY\nJanuary 9, 2001\nGlynn Blanton\nTennessee Regulatory Authority\n460 James Robertson Parkway\nNashville, TN 37243-0505\nRE: Stone Mountain Pipeline Company, LC Pipeline Technical Information\nDear Glynn:\nOn Tuesday, December 19, 2000, Stacey Vamey, Evan Energy Company's Vice President of\nMarketing and Finance met with you to discuss Stone Mountain Pipeline Company's upcoming\npipeline gathering project located in Hancock and Hawkins Counties, Tennessee (Stone\nMontanan Pipeline Company is an wholly-owned subsidiary of Evan energy Company, LC).\nStacey requested that I further provide you with our preliminary construction schedule and to\nfurther elaborate as to the technical details of the project.\nStone Mountain Pipeline plans on beginning Initial construction late this week, the week of\nJanuary 8, 2001. A clearing crew will be mobilizing into the Mulberry Gap area northwest of\nSneedville. The pipeline spread should move in approximately one week later to begin laying the\n10\" steel gathering pipeline.\nAs of today, our land acquisition crews have acquired 46,020 feet of rights- of-way in Hancock\nCounty, leaving a balance of 10,390 feet to be acquired. In Hawkins County we have procured\n16,000 feet of rights-of-way, leaving an approximate balance of 24,000 feet to be acquired. We\nexpect to move a second crew to the construction schedule in early March and anticipate the\nproject completion, to the Rogersville compressor site, by September 1, 2001.\nThe gathering facilities will be constructed in accordance with The Department of\nTransportation codes and standards. Cathodic protection will be installed at 300-foot intervals.\nA minimum of 15% of the welds will be x-rayed. Nesbitt Engineering will provide project\ninspection. The project will require a General Stream Crossing Permit and a permit to bore the\nClinch River. Nesbitt Engineering, with Bud Baldridge as the lead engineer, will prepare the\nnecessary permits.\nTopo maps of the line route are included in this package. The topo maps consist of Back Valley,\nSneedville, Lee Valley and Camelot. Valve locations and the final location of the Rogersville\nCompressor Site have not been finalized. Upon determination of these locations, I will forward a\ndesign schematic for your records. If you have any questions you can contact me or Bill\nHubbard. Bill Hubbard is Stone Mountain Pipeline Company's Vice President of Pipeline\nConstruction and Operations. We can be reached at the following phone numbers:\nBrant Camp Office: 423-245-4900\nMobile: 423-534-9251\n\n<<>>\n\nE-mail: bcamp@evanenergylc.com\nBill Hubbard Office: 540-445-5950\nMobile: 423-956-1236\nStacey also suggested that we plan an initial site visit and review with you. At your convenience,\nI would like to plan a meeting in Hancock County to review the particulars of the project.\nOnce again, if you should need additional information or have questions, please feel free to give\nme a call.\nSincerely,\nBrint Camp\nChief Operating Officer\nEnclosure — As Noted\ncc: Stacey Varney, Evan Energy Company, LC\nMark Pate, Evan Energy Company, LC\nTim Kingsmill, Duke Energy Gas Services Corporation\n\n<<>>\n\nGlynn Blanton – MEMORANDUM\nFrom: \nTo: \nDate: 2/5/01 2:08PM\nSubject: MEMORANDUM\nGlynn, Attached is the information you requested regarding the Stone Mountain gathering\nproject. We will be forwarding originals and certain FERC rulings in this regard as well. I hope\nthis answers the questions you may have about the project and please call me with any other\nquestions.\nThanks You, Tim\n-----Forwarded by Tim P. Kingsmiil/Mktg/TETCO/PEC on 02/05/01 02:03 PM\n-----\n\"Patten,\nNeil\" To: \"Gerik, Rodney (Duke)\" ,\n\nw.com> cc: \"Johnson, Judy (Partner)\" \nSubject: MEMORANDUM\n02/05/01\n01:49 PM\n«443833_2.DOC» ++++++CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE+++++\nThe information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be\nreviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended\nrecipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that\nany review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information\ncontained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately\nnotify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Thank You\n(See attached file: 443833_2.DOC)\nCC: , \n\n<<>>\n\nPage 1\nFebruary 5, 2001\nVinson & Elkins\nAttorneys At Law\nVinson & Elkins L.L.P\n2300 First City Tower\n1001 Fannin Street\nHOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-6760\nFebruary 5, 2001\nRodney E. Gerik\nDuke Energy Corporation\n5600 Westheimer Court\nHouston, Texas 77\nRe: Stone Mountain Project\nRe: Stone Mountain Project\nDear Rod:\nPursuant to your request, attached hereto is an analysis of whether the Stone Mountain\nproject (as defined in the attached memo) will be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Federal\nEnergy Regulatory Commission under the Natural Gas Act. As set forth in the attachment, and\nbased on information provided to us by your, it appears likely that the Commission would\ndetermine that Stone Mountain performs primarily a gathering function under current\nCommission and case law precedent. The details of this analysis are set fort in this attachment.\nPlease call if you have any questions.\nVery truly yours,\nJudy M. Johnson\n\n<<>>\n\nMEMORANDUM\nFebruary 5, 2001\nTO: Judy Johnson\nFROM: Neil Patten\nRE: Application of the Commission's Modified Primary Function\nFactors to the Stone Mountain Project\nI. QUESTION PRESENTED\nDoes the Stone Mountain Project (\"Stone Mountain\") meet the tests applied by the\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (the \"Commission\") in determining that particular\nfacilities perform a gathering function, exempt from the Commission's Natural Gas Act (\"NGA\")\njurisdiction?\nII. BRIEF ANSWER\nBased on Stone Mountain's physical, geographic, and other features, and based on\ncurrent Commission precedent, it seems likely that the Commission would determine that Stone\nMountain performs primarily a gathering function.\nIII. DISCUSSION\nA. Description of the Facilities\nIn its present state, the Stone Mountain Gathering System (a natural gas system not\nsubject to FERC jurisdiction) consists of 63 miles of two, four, six, eight, and ten inch pipe,\nextending from Kentucky south to Virginia.1 Proposed construction would add an additional 81\nmiles of two to ten inch gathering lines to the Stone Mountain System to gather gas from wells\nin and around the system (some of which are not currently producing due to the lack of\ninfrastructure and connection to markets) for delivery into the East Tennessee system at an\ninterconnection downstream of the Rogersville compression station.2 East Tennessee will build a\nlateral (twelve inches in diameter) to the proposed site of interconnection pursuant to East\nTennessee's blanket authority.\nB. Interstate Commerce\nIt is well established that merely crossing state lines does not affect a gathering system's\nnon-jurisdictional status.\n3 Accordingly, the next analytical step is to determine whether the\nfacilities are gathering in nature under the applicable Commission test as applied to on-shore\nfacilities.\nC. The Modified Primary Function Test\nUnder NGA Section 1(b), the Commission has jurisdiction over the transportation and\nsale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce and any natural gas company engaged in\nsuch transportation or sale. By the specific terms of the NGA, the Commission's jurisdictional\npower, however, does not extend to facilities used for the production or gathering of natural\ngas.4\n\n<<>>\n\n1We have been informed that the existing Stone Mountain Gathering System is regarded as a gathering system and is\nnot currently regulated by the Commission.\n2 An extension of the existing Stone Mountain facilities, similar to the one now proposed, albeit with a different,\nlonger route, was developed by the previous owners of Stone Mountain and discussed with three members of the\nCommission staff on June 4, 1998; staff, at that time, informally advised that the proposal was consistent with a\ngathering function.\n3 See Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and Norse Pipeline, L.L.C., 85 FERC ¶ 61,191 (1998), reh'g denied, 86\nFERC 1161,137 (1999).\n4 See 15 USC § 717(b) (1994) (noting that \"The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the transportation of natural\ngas in interstate commerce, to the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public\nconsumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, and to natural-gas companies engaged in such\ntransportation or sale, but shall not apply to any other transportation or sale of natural gas or to the local distribution\nof natural gas or to the facilities used for such distribution or to the production or gathering of natural gas.\"). 15\nU.S.C. § 717(b) (1994).\n\n<<>>\n\nThe NGA does not further define gathering, but the Commission has, on a case by case basis,\ndescribed a set of factors it considers in determining the primary function of a facility, currently\nknow as the \"modified primary function test.\"5 For an on-shore facility, these factors include: (1)\nthe length and diameter of the line; (2) the extension of the facility beyond the central point of\nthe field; (3) the facility's geographic configuration; (4) the location of compressors and\nprocessing plants; (5) the location of wells along all or part of the facility; and (6) the operating\npressure of the line.6 Additionally, the Commission also considers the purpose, location, and\noperation of the owner of the facility and whether the jurisdictional determination is consistent\nwith the objectives of the NGA.7 Moreover, the Commission does not consider any one factor of\nthe modified primary function test to be determinative and recognizes that all factors do not\nnecessarily apply in all situations.8 The goal is to determine whether the primary function of the\nfacility is to gather gas from production areas for delivery into a major transmission facility.\nD. Application of the Modified Primary Function Test to the Instant Facts\nApplying the factors outlined above to Stone Mountain's physical, geographic and other\nfeatures suggests that Stone Mountain's facilities are most likely gathering in nature.\n1. Length and Diameter of the Lines\nThe portion of Stone Mountain yet to be built will consist of 81 miles of two to ten inch\nline. The Commission generally considers lines with such a small diameter to be gathering lines,\nand has found lines with diameters up to 20 inches gathering9 when reviewed in the context of\nthe other factors.10 And although several line sections in the system are fairly long by gathering\nstandards—one of the lines currently on the system, and another proposed line, are in excess of\n35 miles—these long lines are, or will be \"backbone\" pipelines that will collect gas from\nnumerous feeding lines along their length. The Commission has held that such backbone lines\nare consistent with a gathering function.11 Moreover, the small diameter of these lines,\ncombined with their low pressure and the fact that no one factor is paramount in determining\nfunction status, suggests that length alone will probably not engender a transmission label.\n2. Central Point in the Field\nThe central point in the field test is based on the idea that gathering involves the\ncollection and movement of gas through various lines to a central point where the gas is\ndelivered into a single line for transmission. Any facilities located upstream of the central point\nare considered non-jurisdictional gathering lines. The Commission has recognized that\nidentifying the central point in the field is not always possible or easy and may be unnecessary\nto a gathering determination.12 Here, however, Stone Mountain plans to gather gas from many\nfields and deliver the gas into an East Tennessee lateral and main line. Given, as noted infra, that\nthere are producing properties throughout the Stone Mountain System and future production is\nexpected, a logical conclusion would be that the central point, for these many fields would be\nthat interconnection.13\n5ONEOK Midstream Pipeline, Inc., 93 FERC 1161,042 (2000).\n\n<<>>\n\n6 See Farmland Industries, Inc., 23 FERC 1161,063 (1983).\n7See Amerada Hess Corporation, 52 FERC 1161,268 (1990) and Amerada Hess Corporation, (\"Amerada Hess II 67 FERC\n1161,254 (1994).\n8 Moreover, the Commission's policy for offshore facilities is somewhat different given the unique considerations in\nthe offshore area. See Amerada Hess II, 67 FERC 1161,254 (1994) (noting that for off-shore facilities the Commission\nwould consider, in addition to the Farmland factors, the changing and technical nature of offshore exploration and\nproduction).\n9 ONEOK Midstream Pipeline, Inc., 93 FERC ¶ 61,042 at (2000).\n10 See Noram Gas Transmission Company, 82 FERC ¶ 61,330 (1998) (holding that small diameter line segments—\nbetween 2 and 12 inches are \"consistent with a gathering determination.\"). Id. at p. 62,308. See also, KN Gas\nGathering, Inc., 69 FERC 61,378 at p. 62,435 (1994).\n11 See Arkla Gathering Services Company, 67 FERC ¶ 61,257 at p. 61,867 (1994), and Northwest Pipeline Corporation,\net al., 59 FERC ¶ 61,115 at p. 61,434 (1992).\n12See Arkla Gathering Services Company, 67 FERC 61,257 at p. 61,867 (1994).\n13 See Id.\n\n<<>>\n\n3. Geographic Configuration\nCommission precedent holds that systems set up in web, spoke or backbone type\ndesigns are suggestive of a gathering function.14 Here, nine wells are currently producing and\ndelivering gas into the system via laterals. Moreover, Stone Mountain plans to gather gas from\nexisting wells not now able to produce due to the lack of a gathering system and delivery\nsystem, and what is projected to be numerous producing wells in the area via small diameter,\nlow-pressure laterals. As projected, these laterals will give the system a backbone-type\nconfiguration, which, as noted above, the Commission generally finds to be indicative of a\ngathering function.\n4. Location of Processing Facilities and Compressors\nCommission precedent holds that for on-shore gathering facilities located upstream of a\nprocessing plant indicate a gathering function.15 Given the nature of the gas that feeds into the\nsystem, Stone Mountain currently sees no need for a processing plant.\nThe system has many small field compressors, which the Commission tends to view as\nsupporting a gathering function. 16\nFurther, the Rogersville compression station itself most likely performs a non-\njurisdictional gathering function. Ranging from 150 to 5,000 horsepower, the size of the\nRogersville compression station is similar to other compression facilities found to be gathering in\nnature.17 Moreover, at Rogersville, new gas supplies that come from exclusively non-\njurisdictional lines are compressed above the pressure threshold needed for delivery into East\nTennessee's lateral and main lines. As the Commission has stated, \"we view the act of\ncompressing gas volumes from a production area in order to enable lower pressure supplies to\nenter a higher pressure mainline as the last act in the gathering process.\"18\nAdditionally, the compressor at Rogersville acts to lower the line pressure upstream,\nallowing gas to come in from the producing areas and giving this low-pressure production a\nboost. Commission precedent holds that \"a significant boost in pressure is often necessary to\nenable gas to move from the lower pressure gathering system into transmission lines\" and \"this\ntype of compression is ... integral to the gathering function.\"19 Thus, because pressure change at\nRogersville can increase the rate of production upstream of the wellhead, the compression at\nRogersville serves to pull produced volumes through gathering lines; this clearly indicates a\ngathering function.2° Finally, the Commission, in the El Paso21 cases—which analyzed the\njurisdictional status of various compression facilities—recently held that only those facilities\nupstream of a processing system provided non-jurisdictional gathering services. The Rogersville\ncompression station, while not upstream of any processing facilities, provides a boost in\npressure both for the gas to enter the East Tennessee mainline and to increase production\nupstream, much like the compressors at issue in the El Paso cases, where the Commission noted\nthat such activities, \"would be non-jurisdictional gathering regardless of whether the cryogenic\nplant or any other non-jurisdictional processing facilities were located immediately\ndownstream.\"22\n\n<<>>\n\n14 See e.g., id.\n15 See Amerada Hess Corporation, 67 FERC ¶ 61,254 at p. 61,846 (1994).\n16 See GPM Gas Corporation v. EL Paso Natural Gas Co., 81 FERC 1161,208 (1997) (holding that \"minimal compression\nin the field that facilitates production from low pressure wells is consistent with a gathering function.\"). Id. at p.\n61,888.\n17 See id. (finding a compressor with 7,660 horsepower to be gathering).\n18 Williams Field Services Group, Inc. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, 89 FERC 1161,161 at p. 61,149 (1999)\n19 See GPM Gas Corporation v. EL Paso Natural Gas Co., 81 FERC 1161,208 (1997)\n20 See Williams Field Services Group, Inc. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, 89 FERC 1161,161 at\np. 61,149 (1999).\n21 See id, and GPM Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 81 FERC 1161,208 (1997); El Paso\nNatural Gas Company, 81 FERC 1161,209 (1997).\n22 Williams Field Services Group, Inc. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, 89 FERC 1161,161 at p. 61,149 (1999) (quoting\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, 84 FERC ¶ 61,048 at p. 61,205 (1998)).\n\n<<>>\n\n5. Location of Wells Along All or Part of the Facility\nCommission precedent holds that wells along all or part of the facility suggest a\ngathering function.23 As noted above, nine wells along Stone Mountain are already operational\nand producing. Moreover, there are approximately 30 existing wells in close proximity to the\nsystem that are to be connected. Also, there is another producing field adjacent to the\nbackbone that offers a potential tie-in and acreage in the area is currently being acquired to\nbegin drilling operations. In total 62 wells are projected to be operational and connected to the\nsystem by September 1, 2001. The Commission currently allows consideration of anticipated\nproduction in determining gathering status.24\n6. Operating Pressure\nThe Commission has held that low operating pressure indicates a gathering function.25\nMost of the lines in the Stone Mountain system operate, or will operate, at pressures between\n300 psig and 700 psig, which fall within, or very close to, the range the Commission normally\naccepts for gathering facilities.26\n7. Purpose of Stone Mountain\nThe central purpose of the Stone Mountain system is to gather gas from producing wells\nfor ultimate delivery onto the proposed East Tennessee interconnect. Stone Mountain currently\nhas only a few small market deliveries—a local municipality, a local restaurant, an asphalt plant,\nand a federal prison. Additionally, Stone Mountain projects that, in addition to the\ninterconnection at East Tennessee, it will have only one delivery point in Tennessee, the\nHawkins County Utility District. Furthermore, Stone Mountain has a very limited market for\npotential deliveries, which is clearly indicative of a primary purpose of gathering.\nIV. CONCLUSION\nThe Stone Mountain system is comprised of small diameter, low-pressure lines, arrayed\nin a backbone configuration around the area's existing and projected producing wells.\nMoreover, the principal stated purpose of the system is to gather gas from producing wells for\ndelivery to East Tennessee. Therefore, under the modified primary function test, as the\nCommission currently applies it, Stone Mountain most likely performs, and will continue to\nperform, a gathering function. Of course, any opinion as to the status of a gathering facility may\nbe affected by new Commission or court decisions, or legislation. These contingencies, however,\nare factors that will always affect a determination of gathering status.\n23 See Williams Natural Gas Company, et al., 67 FERC 1161,252 (1994).\n24 See Dauphin Island Gathering System, 79 FERC 61,391 (1997) (noting that \"Dauphin Island anticipates attaching\nnew production\" from both shallow and deep water reserves.). Id. at p. 62,658.\n25 See id. at p. 61,829.\n26 See El Paso Natural Gas Company, 72 FERC 1161,220 at p. 62,012 (1995) (finding that pressures between 500 and\n750 psig were \"not inconsistent with a gathering function.\"). Id.\n\n<<>>\n\nSee Original For Map","truncated":false,"body_characters":28272}