Green Wolf Oil Company; Notice of Petition for Adjustment

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13980-13981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6989]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. SA99-14-000]


Green Wolf Oil Company; Notice of Petition for Adjustment

March 17, 1999.
    Take notice that on February 17, 1999, Green Wolf Oil Company, 
(Green Wolf),\1\ filed a petition for staff adjustment in the above-
referenced docket, pursuant to section 502(c) of the Natural Gas Policy 
Act of 1978 (NGPA) and Rules 1101-1117 (18 CFR 385.1101-385.1117) of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Green Wolf seeks 
relief from paying Kansas ad valorem tax refunds to Panhandle Eastern 
Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) and Williams Gas Pipeline Central, Inc. 
(Williams).\2\ Green Wolf's petition is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Green Wolf is a dissolved partnership that was comprised of 
partners Laurance B. Wolfberg (Wolfberg) and Robert I. Greenberg 
(Greenberg). Wolfberg and Greenberg each held a one-half interest in 
the partnership until it was dissolved in 1984 by withdrawal of 
Greenberg.
    \2\ The total refund claim against Green Wolf stands at 
$330,755.13, plus the interest that continues to accrue on these 
refund obligations. Panhandle's refund claim totals $145,274.28 
($52,295.60 in principal and $92,978.68 in interest). Williams' 
refund claim totals $185,479.85 ($67,824.06 in principal and 
$117,655.79 in interest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Green Wolf asserts that paying the two pipeline refund claims will 
cause it to endure a special hardship, inequity, and an unfair 
distribution of burdens. Green Wolf asserts that all of the assets from 
the dissolved partnership are long gone, and that the remaining assets, 
i.e., the leases in question, do not produce enough to cover the refund 
demand. Green Wolf also points out that six of the eight wells involved 
operated at a loss over most of the period from 1990-1998. Green Wolf 
further states that one of the former partners (Wolfberg) is in 
bankruptcy. Therefore, Green Wolf contends that any refund attributable 
to Wolfberg is uncollectible. Green Wolf also asserts that the action 
requiring Green Wolf to make the refunds, i.e., the Circuit Court of 
Appeals decision in Public Service Company of Colorado v. FERC, 91 F.3d 
1478 (D.C. Cir. 1996), is ``entirely illegal and inequitable because 
Green Wolf had no notice of the proceedings beginning in 1983 upon 
which the refund demand is based until well after the ultimate 
decisions became final.'' \3\ Green Wolf further contends that, without 
notice sufficient to satisfy due process under 44 U.S.C. Secs. 1507 and 
1508, neither the Circuit Court of Appeals nor the FERC has ``in 
personam jurisdiction'' over Green Wolf.\4\ Green Wolf also argues that 
requiring Green Wolf to pay interest on the refund principal is wholly 
inequitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Petition at pages 6 and 7.
    \4\ Petition at page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Green Wolf seeks relief from having to pay the refunds 
attributable to: (1) other working interest owners; (2) royalty 
interest owners; (3) pre-October 4, 1983 production; and (4) certain 
NGPA section 103(b)(2) wells, after the deregulation of those wells in 
June of 1987. Green Wolf asserts that, since 1983, the ownership of 
royalty interests in the leases has changed numerous times, that the 
records for payment of royalties for the years in question have been 
destroyed, and that the accountant who handled the partnership records 
(which includes those pertaining to payment of royalty interests) has 
died. In view of this, Green Wolf contends that it is now impossible to 
ascertain, with any degree of accuracy, the amount of overpayment which 
must be demanded from any of the royalty interest owners, living or 
dead. Therefore, Green Wolf contends that it cannot be held accountable 
for the refunds attributable to the royalty interest owners.
    Green Wolf also contends that the Commission must permit it to 
offset its refund obligations on the Campbell #1 and #2 wells to 
compensate for Williams' underpayment to Green Wolf on two other wells 
which, according to Green Wolf, were entitled to but did not receive 
the NGPA section 108 price.
    Finally, Green Wolf contends that the interest associated with 
Williams' refund claim should be paid by Williams, because Green Wolf's 
gas sales contract with Williams held that Williams would be 
responsible for refunding any interest associated with refunds required 
by the Federal Power Commission--the predecessor agency to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission. Green Wolf also argues that Article I, 
Section 10 of the United State Constitution as prohibiting ex post 
facto laws and laws which impair the obligations of contracts, and that 
in view of this and the common law of contracts (which permits the 
parties to divide burden as they choose) Williams should be the one 
held responsible for paying the interest associated with its refund 
claim.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said petition should on or before 15 days after the date 
of publication in the Federal Register of this notice, file with

[[Page 13981]]

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in 
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, 385.211, 385.1105, and 385.1106). All 
protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the Protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any 
hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-6989 Filed 3-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M