More on Pentex PUC Application-- PLEASE READ!

[Shellie N]

There are WAY TOO MANY missing details for me to feel good about this.   This is a big grab that doesn't make sense.  You cannot tell me that Cargill could possibly use as much gas as what is listed in the application for expanded territory:   Townships of Wyalusing, Herrick, Terry, Tuscarora, Stevens, and Wilmot in Bradford County   Do you really trust them not to use eminent domain? (won't they have an unfair competitive advantage over other gathering companies in the area?)    Saunders, an attorney who does a lot of pipeline agreements, is quoted.   They say they are not going to provide compressor stations!  Aren't they needed for such a large territory?   And I just love how they quoted word for word some of the Laser application regarding the Public Necessity section on the application.   And it reading some of the code on public utilities, it appears they may be missing details with regards to their obligations to honor requests for service, perhaps both in delivery & in gathering?   http://thedailyreview.com/news/business/pipeline-company-makes-bid-to-enter-shale-business-1.1125953  Pipeline company makes bid to enter shale business By David Falchek (Staff Writer) Published: March 31, 2011   Another pipeline company petitioned the Public Utility Commission to move gas from Marcellus Shale wells.   But unlike Laser Marcellus Northeast, whose bid was rejected by an administrative law judge last year, Pentex Pipeline Co. won't have to fight for utility status and the right to condemn property via eminent domain - it already has it.   Pentex secured the "certificate of public convenience" and public utility privileges in 1988 to provide natural gas service from the Tennessee Gas intrastate pipeline, to a single customer: the then-Taylor Meat Packing, now Cargill Meat Solutions.   Now Pentex is asking the PUC to amend that certificate to draw gas from wells in Wyalusing, Herrick, Terry, Tuscarora, Stevens, and Wilmot townships, to both serve Cargill, and move excess gas into the interstate pipeline system.   Pentex is headquartered outside Dallas, Texas, but Pentex president Mark Casaday, grew up in Dallas, Pa., and lives outside Philadelphia. Pentex expects to fare better than Laser Marcellus before the PUC for several reasons. The primary goal of the amendment is to provide gas for Cargill from wells owned by Cargill.   "We should be viewed as 180 degrees from Laser Marcellus, in that we are doing this for the benefit of a single, in-state customer who currently buys gas though interstate pipelines," he said. "Laser Marcellus is putting gas into the interstate market while we are trying to create an intrastate market."   Pentax's application had no details about the location or size of potential lines, Casaday said, because he's not sure where or what wells would be served other than those on Cargill's property. Some residents who have learned about the small company and their ambitions are upset, said Steve Saunders, who represents landowners in the area.   "This should be a concern because if this amendment is granted it would bring the possibility of forced taking through eminent domain," Saunders said. "Once the company decides it is at an impasse with a property owner, the property owner has no control over the compensation or the siting of the line."   Terry Twp. Supervisor James P. Ahern has no problem with Cargill using gas from its property to fuel its operation. But he objects to an outfit such as Pentex having public utility privileges.   "This is one private outfit selling to another private outfit and that's not a public utility," he said, noting that companies successfully installed natural gas collection and gathering pipeline networks in his township - and on his property - without the ability to invoke eminent domain.   Casaday said he has never used eminent domain, and doesn't plan to.   "If you offer people a fair price and work with them, you don't need it," he said. "This is not about eminent domain."   Contact the writer: dfal...@timesshamrock.com

[Shellie N]

Protest or petition to intervene?   Sorry for this cut & paste (also in attached doc).    I just lost some hours with a computer issue.  Anyone else's computer go bonkers on a Marcellus Shill Coalition mailing day?  (it's the most amazing coincidence, a real crapstorm of e-mails exploding the inbox too, makes things difficult)  I'm afraid I'm going under the weather too.   http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/052/chapter5/chap5toc.html PROTESTS § 5.51. Protest to an application.    (a)  A person objecting to the approval of an application filed with the Commission may file a protest to the application.  (b)  Protests to motor carrier property applications are not permitted. See §  3.381(c) (relating to applications for transportation of property, household goods in use and persons).  (c)  Subsection (a) supersedes 1 Pa. Code §  35.23 (relating to protest generally).   § 5.52. Content of a protest to an application.  (a)  Form. A protest to an application must:    (1)  Set out clearly and concisely the facts from which the alleged interest or right of the protestant can be determined.    (2)  State the grounds of the protest .    (3)  Set forth the facts establishing the protestant’s standing to protest.  (b)  Motor carrier. Protests in motor carrier cases must conform with §  3.381(c)(1) (relating to applications for transportation of property and persons).  (c)  Filing and service. A protest shall be filed with the Secretary and served upon the applicant or the applicant’s attorney, if any.   § 5.53. Time of filing.  A protest shall be filed within the time specified in the published notice of the application. If no protest time is specified, the protest shall be filed within 60 days of publication of the notice. § 5.66. Answers to petitions to intervene.  (a)  A party may file an answer to a petition to intervene within 20 days of service, and in default thereof, may be deemed to have waived objection to the granting of the petition. Answers shall be served upon all other parties.  (b)  Subsection (a) supersedes 1 Pa. Code §  35.36 (relating to answers to petitions to intervene).   INTERVENTION   § 5.71. Initiation of intervention.  (a)  Participation in a proceeding as an intervenor may be initiated as follows:    (1)  By the filing of a notice of intervention by another agency of the Commonwealth which is authorized by statute to participate in the proceeding.    (2)  By order of the presiding officer or the Commission upon grant of a petition to intervene.  (b)  Subsection (a) supersedes 1 Pa. Code §  35.27 (relating to initiation of intervention).     § 5.72. Eligibility to intervene.  (a)  Persons. A petition to intervene may be filed by a person claiming a right to intervene or an interest of such nature that intervention is necessary or appropriate to the administration of the statute under which the proceeding is brought. The right or interest may be one of the following:    (1)  A right conferred by statute of the United States or of the Commonwealth.    (2)  An interest which may be directly affected and which is not adequately represented by existing participants, and as to which the petitioner may be bound by the action of the Commission in the proceeding.    (3)  Another interest of such nature that participation of the petitioner may be in the public interest.  (b)  Commonwealth. The Commonwealth or an officer or agency thereof may intervene as of right in a proceeding subject to paragraphs (1)—(3).  (c)  Supersession. Subsections (a) and (b) are identical to 1 Pa. Code §  35.28 (relating to eligibility to intervene).   § 5.73. Form and content of petitions to intervene.  (a)  Petitions to intervene must set out clearly and concisely the following:    (1)  The facts from which the alleged intervention right or interest of the petitioner can be determined.    (2)  The grounds of the proposed intervention.    (3)  The petitioner’s position regarding the issues in the proceeding.  (b)  When the circumstances warrant, petitions to intervene filed on behalf of more than one person may be required to list those persons and entities comprising the represented group.  (c)  Subsections (a) and (b) supersede 1 Pa. Code §  35.29 (relating to form and contents of petitions to intervene).     § 5.74. Filing of petitions to intervene.  (a)  Petitions to intervene may be filed following the filing of an application, petition, complaint or other document seeking Commission action.  (b)  Petitions to intervene shall be filed:    (1)  No later than the date fixed for the filing of responsive pleadings in an order or notice with respect to the proceedings but not less than the notice and protest period established under § §  5.14 and 5.53 (relating to applications requiring notice; and time of filing) absent good cause shown.    (2)  No later than the date fixed for filing protests as published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin except for good cause shown.    (3)  In accordance with §  5.53 if no deadline is set in an order or notice with respect to the proceedings.    (4)  A statutory advocate may exercise a right of participation or file a notice of intervention consistent with law at any time in a proceeding. A statutory advocate exercising a right of participation or filing a notice of intervention following expiration of any protest or intervention period shall take the record as developed unless determined otherwise in exceptional circumstances for good cause shown.  (c)  Except with regard to statutory advocates under subsection (b)(4), intervention will not be permitted once an evidentiary hearing has concluded absent extraordinary circumstances.  (d)  The Commission or presiding officer may, when the circumstances warrant, permit the waiver of the requirements of §  5.409 (relating to copies and form of documentary evidence) with respect to copies of exhibits for the intervenor.  (e)  Subsections (a)—(d) supersede 1 Pa. Code §  35.30 (relating to filing of petitions to intervene).   § 5.75. Notice, service and action on petitions to intervene.  (a)  Notice and service. Petitions to intervene, when tendered to the Commission for filing, must show service thereof upon all parties to the proceeding in conformity with §  1.54 (relating to service by a party).   http://pa.mypublicnotices.com/PublicNotice.asp?Page=PublicNotice&AdId=2304674   LEGAL NOTICE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Application of Pentex Pipeline Company for Approval to Begin to Offer, Render, Furnish, or Supply Natural Gas Gathering or Conveying Services by Pipeline to its Existing Customer and to the Public in the Townships of Wyalusing, Herrick, Terry, Tuscarora, Stevens, and Wilmot in Bradford County, PA. Docket No. A-2011-2230314. Formal protests and petitions to intervene must be filed in accordance with Title 52 of the Pennsylvania Code, on or before April 11, 2011. All filings must be made with the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, P.O. Box 3265, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265, with a copy served on the Applicant. The documents filed in support of the Application are available for inspection and copying at the Office of the Secretary between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, on the Commission's website at www.puc.state.pa.us, and at the Applicant's business address. Applicant: Pentex Pipeline Company By and through Counsel: Pamel C. Polacek, Esq. Carl J. Zwick, Esq. McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC 100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 (717) 237-5368 (Phone) (717) 260-1736 (Fax) 24mar,1tc   http://www.puc.state.pa.us/general/search.aspx   Secretary Letter & Publication Notice to Pentex Pipeline:   http://www.puc.state.pa.us//pcdocs/1124106.doc   Application for Additional Territory:   http://www.puc.state.pa.us//pcdocs/1124105.pdf   --- On Fri, 4/1/11, rebecca roter <alu...@aol.com> wrote:       From: rebecca roter <alu...@aol.com> Subject: Re: SCGF More on Pentex PUC Application-- PLEASE READ! To: "Virginia Cody" <petportr...@yahoo.com>, susquehann...@googlegroups.com, "Shellie N" <thereal...@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, April 1, 2011, 8:18 PM Contact deborah goldberg at earthjustice....she represented the citizens that filed formal protests against laser's application. Look into filing a formal protest against pentex's request to the puc...... Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: Virginia Cody <petportr...@yahoo.com> Sender: susquehann...@googlegroups.com Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:08:37 -0700 (PDT) To: Shellie N<thereal...@yahoo.com>; <susquehann...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: SCGF More on Pentex PUC Application-- PLEASE READ! Shellie, please forward this to CCAGD and BCDA; I'm not on their list serve.   Laser is a company that tried to get eminent domain status in Susquehanna County last year.  Its owner/CEO is a guy who lives in Waverly, PA (he went to high school with Patrick.)  Seriously well-to-do and prepared to screw anyone who gets in his way as he tries to get "utility" status so he can pay bottom of the barrel prices for truly valuable land.    Even leased landowners should be (and were) incensed at his (their) audacity.  They have NO respect for the people.....especially people who get in their way.  Do not trust him (them).   Virginia     From: Shellie N <thereal...@yahoo.com> To: citizensconcerneda...@googlegroups.com; bradford-county-d...@googlegroups.com; susquehann...@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 12:48:43 PM Subject: SCGF More on Pentex PUC Application-- PLEASE READ!

--