Message-ID: <33031146.1075842680524.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:53:00 -0700 (PDT) From: gerald.nemec@enron.com To: mark.courtney@enron.com Subject: Clear Creek Storage FERC Proceeding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Gerald Nemec X-To: Mark Courtney X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Gerald_Nemec_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: NEMEC-G X-FileName: gnemec.nsf Attached is the cite you forwarded earlier. =20 ----- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 07/06/2000 03:50 PM ----- =09LEXIS(R)/NEXIS(R) Print Delivery =0907/06/2000 03:31 PM =09=09=20 =09=09 To: gerald.nemec@enron.com =09=09 cc:=20 =09=09 Subject: LEXIS(R)-NEXIS(R) Email Request (711:0:11094446) =20 108CKF Print Request: LEXSEE Time of Request: July 6, 2000 04:31 pm EST Number of Lines: 394 Job Number: 711:0:11094446 Client ID/Project Name: Research Information: Lexsee 84 FERC P61,210 Note: =0F, = =20 PAGE 1 LEXSEE 84 FERC P61,210 Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. Docket No. CP98-256-000 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION - COMMISSION 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726 ORDER ISSUING CERTIFICATE September 1, 1998 PANEL: [*1] Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt Hebert, Jr. OPINION: On March 2, 1998, Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. (Clear Creek) file= d=20 an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for a certificate to convert a natural gas production reservoir to a natural gas storage facility, to construct appurtenant facilities, and to operate the storage field and related facilities for the sole use of Clear Creek's two owners, Questar Energy Trading Company (Questar Energy) and Montana Power Ventures, Inc. (Montana Power). Clear Creek requests that, to the extent feasible, the authorization granted to it be a limited jurisdiction=20 certificate. Clear Creek also requests waivers of various Commission regulations and requirements. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant Clear Creek's request for authorization to convert the production reservoir to a gas storage facility= =20 and to construct and operate facilities. However, we will require Clear Creek t= o operate the facility on an open access basis. I. Background Questar Energy and Montana Power formed Clear Creek to own and operate t= he proposed Clear Creek storage [*2] project. Questar Energy owns 75 percent = and Montana Power owns 25 percent of Clear Creek. Questar Energy is a wholly-ow= ned subsidiary of Questar Corporation and a natural gas marketing affiliate of Questar Pipeline Company, an interstate pipeline. Questar Energy engages in marketing of natural gas, crude oil, and electricity. It purchases natural = gas from affiliated production companies and unaffiliated companies. Montana Power is an affiliate of Montana Power Company, an electric and = gas utility regulated by the Commission as well as the State of Montana. Montan= a Power engages in natural gas business development, which will include=20 purchasing and selling natural gas upon approval of Clear Creek's application. Clear Creek states that both Questar Energy and Montana Power plan to activ= ely purchase and sell natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region, and elsewhere i= n=20 the United States. Therefore, they both wish to develop storage capabilities to better manage their natural gas supplies, including the balancing of their =0F, = =20 PAGE 2 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *2 respective natural gas supplies and supply acquisition opportunities with current and projected demand for natural gas. Clear Creek states that the storage capacity will [*3] assist Questar Energy and Montana Power to buy = and sell gas when it is most economically favorable to do so, to offer more=20 reliable supply products to potential customers, and to manage transportation=20 obligations to minimize exposure to penalties and cashout charges. Clear Creek proposes to locate its storage project in the depleted Nugge= t reservoir in the Clear Creek Field in Uinta County, Wyoming, an active natu= ral gas production region. Chevron, Inc. discovered the field in 1978. The fiel= d produced gas from 1979 until 1994 when it was shut-in after production of o= il and gas from the field was no longer economic. Prior to shut-in, 15 wells produced natural gas that was delivered through existing pipeline facilitie= s into Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Kern River Gas Transmission Company, a= nd Questar Pipeline Company. Clear Creek states that the interconnecting pipeline taps, laterals, gathering facilities and wells are still in place and, with minor=20 modifications, will be used to transport gas in and out of the proposed storage facility. Questar Energy has owned and operated the Clear Creek field since late= =20 1993, having acquired it from its affiliate, Universal Resources Corporation [*4] (Universal), a natural gas producer. Universal tested the field in 1996 and= =20 1997 and determined that the depleted oil/gas reservoir in the Nugget formation = can economically be converted to a storage project of up to 4 Bcf of working ga= s.=20 n1 Questar Energy plans to transfer its interests in the field to Clear Creek. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - n1 Universal requested and received an exemption, pursuant to section 7(c)(1)(B) of the NGA, to test the Clear Creek field for a possible storage project to be undertaken by it or one of its affiliates. See Universal=20 Resources Corp., 76 FERC P 61,002 (1996)(Docket No. CP96-528-000). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - II. Proposal Clear Creek proposes to convert a reservoir in the Nugget formation in a depleted natural gas production field in the Clear Creek Participation Area= =20 (PA) of the Painter Reservoir Unit to a gas storage facility. The Clear Creek PA= is located in Uinta County, Wyoming, approximately 15 miles northeast of=20 Evanston. The proposed project would reuse facilities in place within the Clear Creek= PA from previous activities [*5] in Sections 4 and 9 of the production field. Lands in Section 4 are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) = and lands in Section 9 are owned privately by Uinta Livestock Grazing Partnersh= ip. The Nugget formation is located at an approximate depth of 8700 feet and storage will be water driven. Clear Creek expects to operate the storage reservoir at a pressure of approximately 3200 psi. Clear Creek proposes to develop 4 Bcf of working storage capacity, supported by 2 to 4 Bcf of cushi= on gas. Questar Energy and Montana Power will supply cushion gas in proportion= to their membership interests. The project is expected to have a maximum gas =0F, = =20 PAGE 3 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *5 injection capability of up to 35 MMcf/day (at approximately 4200 psi) and a maximum withdrawal capability of up to 50 MMcf/day (at approximately 750 ps= i). Clear Creek states that it will own and be responsible for operating the storage project. Under the Construction, Operation and Management Agreement between Clear Creek, Questar Energy and Montana Power, Clear Creek will=20 contract with Questar Energy to operate the field on a day to day basis. A. Facilities Clear Creek states that conversion of the field to storage will require minimal construction [*6] and will enable it to maximize the use of existi= ng facilities that were installed in connection with previous exploration and production activity at the field. Clear Creek proposes to use a single, existing well (#44-4) for injectio= ns and withdrawals and up to 8 existing wells for monitoring. Clear Creek expe= cts to use the existing roads, pipeline facilities, buildings, fencing, rights-of-way, pads, and cleared areas, and some of the existing storage=20 tanks. Clear Creek proposes to install the following new facilities: two 2100-hp compressors (possibly leased), which will be installed in an existing building designed and historically used for compressors; one Joule-Thompson Liquid Extraction Plant (skid mounted), which will be located in an already cleared, fenced site; new insulation, wrapping and electric heat tracing for the existing injection/withdrawal line that connects the injection/withdrawal well to th= e compressor building; one 30,000-gallon natural gas liquids storage tank, located in an existi= ng cleared, fenced site; a skid-mounted production unit to separate water and free hydrocarbon=20 liquids from the production stream during withdrawal operations; two additional 400-barrel [*7] water tanks, to be located in pre-distur= bed sites; new 3.5-inch tubing in the injection/withdrawal well, #44-4, inside the existing 5.5-inch casing; and communications and monitoring equipment. Clear Creek anticipates that it also will be necessary to modify existin= g pipeline facilities that connect the field to Questar Pipeline. Clear Creek expects Questar Pipeline to replace, under its blanket construction=20 certificate, approximately 50 feet of 4-inch pipe and meter run with an equivalent lengt= h=20 of 6-inch pipe and meter run. Clear Creek requests authority to modify its lin= e connected to the Clear Creek Field to accommodate those modifications by=20 Questar Pipeline. Clear Creek states that, historically, gas was delivered from the field= =20 into Questar Pipeline, and was received from and delivered back to Questar Pipel= ine during Universal's well tests. Clear Creek submits that, in the future, it =0F, = =20 PAGE 4 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *7 expects to receive gas from and deliver gas to other pipelines in the area, including Northwest Pipeline Corporation and Kern River. However, Clear Cre= ek does not seek approval at this time to construct any facilities necessary t= o implement these additional receipt and delivery points. B. Services [*8] Clear Creek proposes to render storage services solely for its two membe= rs, Questar Energy and Montana Power, which will receive storage capacity right= s=20 in direct proportion to their ownership interests, i.e., Questar Energy will h= ave use of 75 percent of the field's storage capacity and Montana Power will ha= ve use of 25 percent of the capacity. Questar Energy and Montana Power will al= so have firm use of injection and withdrawal capabilities totaling 35 MMcf/d a= nd=20 50 MMcf/d, respectively, on a percentage basis equal to the share of storage capacity rights. Each will have a right to unused injection and withdrawal capabilities on an interruptible basis. Clear Creek proposes to provide no storage service to any entity other than= =20 its owners. Questar Energy and Montana Power will each own and store its own ga= s=20 in the capacity it holds. C. Requested Waivers Clear Creek states that it neither requests nor desires a blanket=20 certificate to transport for others. Therefore, Clear Creek requests the Commission to= =20 waive any requirement that the proposed project be operated on an open access bas= is. Clear Creek submits that its proposal is different from the situations presented in two cases, [*9] Total Peaking Services, L.L.C. (Total Peakin= g)=20 n2 and Hopkinton LNG Corporation (Hopkinton), n3 in which the Commission rejec= ted private storage proposals involving existing liquid natural gas (LNG)=20 facilities belonging to local distribution companies (LDCs) and required the applicant= s=20 to provide open access storage. Unlike those cases, Clear Creek maintains, its proposed project is not located in a market area but in a supply area=20 surrounded by both major production areas and major interstate pipelines. In addition,= =20 the reservoir Clear Creek proposes to convert to storage was not previously developed by a regulated LDC or any other form of regulated entity and thus there are no risks of cross-subsidies by ratepayers. Further, submits Clear Creek, there are no concerns about an affiliated LDC engaging in capacity brokering to deliver gas to or from market area LNG plants, a unique market advantage described by the Commission in Total Peaking. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - n2 81 FERC P61,246 (1997). n3 81 FERC P61,291 (1997). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - [*10] Further, Clear Creek argues, its proposal is for a small, low budget=20 project which cannot readily be increased in size to accommodate new demands for=20 storage from a third-party without a great increase in associated costs and, to a= =20 lesser extent, environmental consequences. Clear Creek also maintains that dilutio= n=20 of =0F, = =20 PAGE 5 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *10 the quantity of storage available to Questar Energy and Montana Power would undermine their incentives to proceed. Clear Creek states that the project'= s costs would increase due to the sizable regulatory burdens associated with preparing and maintaining tariffs, ratemaking, utility-based accounting practices, reporting, GISB, EBBs, additional personnel, and=20 marketing-affiliate rules requiring separation of Clear Creek from its two marketer owners.=20 Further, it contends, an open access requirement would expose it to economic risks a= nd third-party liability issues such as risks of gas loss, force majeure, proj= ect failure, and credit that do not exist for a project that would only serve i= ts two owners. Accordingly, Clear Creek requests waivers of all reporting requirements, including the obligation to file Form 2 or similar reports; any obligation = to file rates, tariffs, [*11] contracts, or contract amendments; any obligat= ion to justify rates on any basis other than those the parties negotiated as pa= rt=20 of the Agreement; any obligation to follow the Uniform System of Accounts; any obligation to adhere to GISB standards or to maintain an EBB; any obligatio= n=20 to separate personnel or otherwise to adhere to marketing affiliate rules as t= hey might otherwise apply to the relationship between Clear Creek and its owner= s;=20 n4 and any other rules or requirements that would otherwise apply to an open= =20 access pipeline or storage company. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - n4 Clear Creek acknowledges that Questar Energy would remain subject to = the marketing affiliate rules as they apply to its dealings with Questar Pipeli= ne Co. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - III. Interventions Notice of Clear Creek's application was published in the Federal Registe= r=20 on March 24, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 14077). Colorado Interstate Gas Company, Natur= al Gas Clearinghouse, Northwest Pipeline Corporation, and Questar Pipeline=20 Company filed timely motions to intervene. [*12] n5 No protests were filed. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - n5 Timely, unopposed motions to intervene are granted by the operation o= f @ 385.214(c)(1) of the Commission's regulations. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - IV. Discussion A. Jurisdiction Since the proposed facilities will be used for the transportation of=20 natural gas in interstate commerce subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, the requested authorization is subject to section 7(c) of the NGA. B. Public Convenience and Necessity Order No. 636 n6 was designed to encourage interstate pipelines to provi= de =0F, = =20 PAGE 6 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *12 unbundled, open-access transportation. Clear Creek proposes that the=20 Commission make an exception for its storage proposal, and not require it to provide o= pen access storage services. As we stated in Hopkinton and Total Peaking, we fi= nd that such proposals are not in the public interest. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - n6 Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines= =20 After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, 57 Fed. Reg. 13,267 (April 16, 1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles P 30,939 (April 8, 1992); order on reh'g, Order No.=20 636-A, 57 Fed. Reg. 36,128 (August 12, 1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles P 30,950 (August 3, 1992); order on reh'g, Order No. 636-B, 57 Fed. Reg. 57,9= 11 (December 8, 1992), 61 FERC P61,272 (1992); reh'g denied, 62 FERC P61,007= =20 (1993) remanded in part sub nom., United Distribution Co. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105 (D= .C. Cir. 1996), order on remand, Order No. 636-C, 78 FERC P61,186 (1997); cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1723 (1997). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - [*13] Clear Creek seeks to distinguish its proposal from those in Hopkinton an= d Total Peaking by noting that, unlike those two proposals, its proposed stor= age facility is not in the market area and does not raise cross-subsidization o= r capacity brokering issues. We recognize that those issues are not present i= n Clear Creek's proposal. Nevertheless, its proposal is the same in one=20 overriding aspect. Clear Creek seeks authorization to perform jurisdictional interstat= e transportation with no requirement that such service be offered on an open-access basis. Such proposals are inconsistent with the regulatory goal= s embodied in Order No. 636, which was intended to encourage interstate=20 pipelines to provide open-access services, including storage. Therefore, we will requ= ire Clear Creek to restructure its proposal into one that is consistent with th= e principles of Order No. 636. Specifically, we will issue Clear Creek a Part= =20 284 blanket transportation certificate conditioned on Clear Creek's filing, wit= hin 60 days of the date of issuance of this order, a revised Exhibit P to its application, setting forth its proposed tariff and initial rates along with supporting schedules for open-access firm [*14] and interruptible storage service and storage-related transportation that comply with the requirement= s=20 of Part 284 and with the Commission's restructuring rules as expressed in Orde= r=20 No. 636. To the extent Clear Creek seeks to charge market-based rates, it must ma= ke=20 a showing that it lacks market power. The Commission has issued several order= s that provide guidance on the criteria it uses to evaluate market-based rate proposals. n7 In addition, an applicant's market-based study should be consistent with the Commission's policy statement on ratemaking n8 and must show, among other things, that: (a) the relevant market provides good alternatives to the applicant and is not defined too broadly; (b) the alternatives are timely; (c) the applicant is not able to exercise market= =20 power over the price of the product; and (d) the quality of service is equivalent= . Clear Creek should provide this information in the tariff filing required= =20 above. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - =0F, = =20 PAGE 7 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *14 n7 New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), 81 FERC P61,020=20 (1997); Moss Bluff Hub Partners, L.P., 80 FERC P61,181 (1997); Egan Hub Partners,= =20 L.P., 77 FERC P61,016 (1996); and K N Interstate Gas Transmission Company, 76 FER= C P61,134 (1996). [*15] n8 Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Ga= s Pipelines, 76 FERC P61,076 (1996). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - Clear Creek requests a limited jurisdiction certificate. The Commission issues such certificates to allow nonjurisdictional parties to engage in=20 certain jurisdictional activities without affecting the status of their otherwise nonjurisdictional activities. Since Clear Creek's sole function is to provi= de interstate storage services, there is no need to issue Clear Creek a limite= d jurisdiction certificate. However, we clarify that the authorization grante= d=20 to Clear Creek will not affect the nonjurisdictional status of Questar Energy = or Montana Power. Because we are approving a Part 284 blanket certificate rather than the limited jurisdiction certificate Clear Creek requested, Clear Creek must=20 comply with the accounting and reporting requirements applicable to other natural = gas companies providing Part 284 service. Accordingly, we deny Clear Creek's=20 request for waiver of those requirements. We will not require Clear Creek to hold an open season since it has agreements [*16] with Questar Energy and Montana Power for all of the=20 capacity of its proposed storage facility and no party has protested the arrangement= . Clear Creek's concern that an open- access requirement for its storage=20 facility would require it to enlarge its project is unfounded. There is no requireme= nt=20 to offer more capacity than exists or to increase a facility's capacity to accommodate potential customers. An open-access transporter need only offer= on an open-access basis existing capacity for which it has no contracts. In th= is regard, we note that the agreement between Clear Creek and its two owners i= s=20 for all of the existing capacity for a term of twenty years. Finally, we note that Clear Creek may apply for a Part 157 blanket certificate under which it could undertake future modifications to the stor= age facilities and operations. C. Engineering The Commission has evaluated Clear Creeks's proposal and concludes that = the development of the Clear Creek reservoir as an underground gas storage fiel= d=20 is feasible. We also evaluated the proposed storage design, facilities, capaci= ty and injection/withdrawal estimates and do not foresee any technical problem= s regarding the development of this [*17] field. Accordingly, in view of these circumstances, we will require that: 1. The maximum inventory of natural gas stored in Clear Creek shall not exceed 8.0 Bcf at 14.73 psia and 60 degrees F, and the maximum shut-in bott= om hole reservoir pressure shall not exceed 5500 psig, without prior Commissio= n authorization; and =0F, = =20 PAGE 8 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *17 2. Clear Creek shall submit semiannual reports in accordance with section 157.214(c) of the regulations. These reports shall continue to be filed unt= il one year after the storage inventory volume has reached or closely=20 approximates 8 Bcf. D. Environmental Assessment The Commission prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Clear Creek= 's proposal. The EA addresses construction procedures, geology, soils, water resources, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, hydrostatic testing, federally= =20 listed threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, land use, air and no= ise quality, and alternatives. Based on the discussion in the EA, we conclude that if constructed in accordance with Clear Creek's application and supplements filed on April 8 = and May 20, 1998, approval of this proposal would not constitute a major Federa= l action significantly affecting the quality [*18] of the human environment. As recommended in the EA, this authorization includes the following conditions: 1. Clear Creek shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its application and supplements (including responses = to staff data requests) and as identified in the EA. Clear Creek must: a. request any modifications to these procedures, measures, or condition= s=20 in a filing with the Secretary of the Commission; b. justify each modification relative to site- specific conditions; c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental protection than the original measure; and d. receive approval in writing from the Director of Office of Pipeline Regulation (OPR) before using that modification. 2. The Director of OPR has delegated authority to take whatever steps ar= e necessary to ensure protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the project. This authority shall allow: a. the modification of conditions of this Order; and b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including stop= =20 work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmen= tal [*19] conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact resulting from project construction and operation. Any state or local permits issued with respect to the jurisdictional facilities authorized herein must be consistent with the conditions of this certificate. The Commission encourages cooperation between natural gas=20 companies and local authorities. However, this does not mean that state and local agencies, through application of state or local laws, may prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by= =20 this Commission. n9 =0F, = =20 PAGE 9 84 F.E.R.C. P61,210; 1998 FERC LEXIS 1726, *19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - n9 See, e.g., Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988);=20 National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public Service Commission, 894 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1990); = and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 52 FERC P61,091 (1990) and = 59 FERC P61,094 (1992). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -= -=20 - Clear Creek shall notify the Commission's environmental staff by telepho= ne [*20] or facsimile of any environmental noncompliance identified by other Federal, state, or local agencies on the same day that such agency notifies Clear Creek. Clear Creek shall file written confirmation of such notificati= on with the Secretary of the Commission within 24 hours. At a hearing held on September 1, 1998, the Commission on its own motion received and made part of the record in this proceeding all evidence,=20 including the application, supplements, and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of= =20 the authorization sought herein, and upon consideration of the record, The Commission orders: (A) A certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued authoriz= ing Clear Creek to construct and operate the proposed storage and related pipel= ine facilities as described in this order and more fully in the application. (B) A blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued pursuant to section 284.221 of the Commission's regulations to Clear Creek authorizing it to perform the activities specified in Part 284, Subpart G, = of the regulations conditioned on Clear Creek's filing, within 60 days of the= =20 date of issuance of this order, tariff provisions setting forth terms [*21] an= d conditions and rates for open-access firm and interruptible storage service= =20 and storage-related transportation. (C) The certificate issued in ordering paragraph (A) is conditioned on= =20 Clear Creek's compliance with the Commission's Regulations including Part 154, 15= 7=20 and 284 and paragraphs (a), (c), (e), and (g) of the section 157.20 of the Commission's Regulations. (E) Clear Creek is required to complete the facilities and place them in service within one year from the date of this order. (F) The authorization granted in ordering paragraph (A) is conditioned o= n Clear Creek's compliance with the environmental and engineering conditions = set forth in this order. (G) Clear Creek shall notify the Commission's environmental staff by telephone and/or facsimile of any environmental noncompliance identified by other Federal, state, or local agencies on the same day that such agency notifies Clear Creek. Clear Creek shall file written confirmation of such notification with the Secretary of the Commission within 24 hours. By the Commission. =0F, = =20 108CKF ********** Print Completed ********** Time of Request: July 6, 2000 04:31 pm EST Print Number: 711:0:11094446 Number of Lines: 394 Number of Pages: 9 =0F,